INSERT INTO `gmcropdatabase_events_descriptions` (`id`, `eventId`, `short`, `long`, `source`, `trialCode`, `created`, `updated`) VALUES
(73, 11, 'Introduction of a modified 5-enol-pyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) and a gene from Achromobacter sp that degrades glyphosate by conversion to aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) and glyoxylate by interspecific crossing with GT73.', '<b>1. The Roundup-ReadyTM Genes</b><br>Two genes were introduced, which in combination provided field level tolerance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup® herbicide. <br>The first gene expresses a bacterial derived version from <i>Agrobacteium tumefaciens</i> strain CP4, of the plant 5-enol-pyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), an enzyme involved in the shikimate biochemical pathway for the production of the aromatic amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan. Glyphosate inhibits the native plant EPSPS, thus blocking the shikimate pathway and halting the synthesis of these amino acids and leading to growth suppression or death of the plant. The CP4 EPSPS enzyme is highly insensitive to glyphosate and thus allows the aromatic amino acid needs of the plant. <br>The second gene is derived from Achromobacter sp., a ubiquitous soil bacteria species which expresses an enzyme that degrades glyphosate by conversion to aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) and glyoxylate, thereby deactivating the herbicidal effect. The coding sequence of this gene has been altered to enhance the efficiency of glyphosate degradation, compared to the original bacterial version. <br>A plant-derived coding sequence expressing a chloroplast transit peptide was co- introduced with each of the Roundup-ReadyTM genes. This peptide facilitates the import of the newly translated Roundup-ReadyTM enzymes into the chloroplasts, the site of both the shikimate pathway and the site of action for glyphosate. <br>Both genes associated with their transit peptide coding sequence, are linked to the same constitutive promoter. Expression of both Roundup-ReadyTM proteins in seed was quantified. <br>The range of expression of both proteins in the seed was comparable to those of <i>B. napus</i> GT73. The average expression levels (in µg/mg f.w.) of the first protein ranged from 0.032 to 0.053 for ZSR500; from 0.014 to 0.053 for ZSR502; and from 0.025 to 0.043 for ZSR503. The average expression levels (in µg/mg f.w) of the second protein ranged from 0.064 to 0.124 for ZSR500; from 0.056 to 0.148 for ZSR502 and; from 0.061 to 0.135 for ZSR503. <br>The Roundup-ReadyTM proteins showed no significant homology with any known toxins or allergens. The novel enzyme associated with the shikimate pathway, is a version of an enzyme that is ubiquitous in nature, and therefore would not be expected to be toxic or allergenic to non-target organisms. For the second novel enzyme, which degrades glyphosate, Monsanto describes experiments with a variety of substrates that show that it has a narrow substrate specificity, and appears not to affect any plant specific pathways. Both proteins are inactivated by heat, and by proteases in simulated mammalian gastric and intestinal fluids.<br><b>2. Development Method</b><br>The <i>Brassica napus</i> line GT73 was developed by transforming the variety "Westar" using a disarmed non-pathogenic <i>Agrobacterium tumefaciens</i> vector; the vector contained the transfer DNA (T-DNA) region of an <i>A. tumefaciens</i> plasmid from which virulence and disease causing genes were removed, and replaced with the Roundup-ReadyTM genes. The T-DNA portion of <i>A. tumefaciens</i> plasmids are generally known to insert randomly into the plant''s genome and the insertion is usually stable, as was shown to be the case in GT73. <br>GT73 was then crossed with Hysyn Polish canola varieties. The mid-season <i>B. rapa</i> canola lines ZSR500, ZSR502 and ZSR503 were derived from four parental populations. Since populations were combined for their development, these lines are referred to as synthetic lines. <br><b>3. Stable Integration into the Plants'' Genomes</b><br>Monsanto provided information on segregation and Southern blot analysis demonstrating that GT73 had a stable single genetic insert, consisting of single copies of the Roundup-ReadyTM genes (please see decision document DD95-02). <br>Since Monsanto was able to cross GT73 with <i>B. rapa</i> and transfer the herbicide tolerance successfully, it is suggested that the genetic insert was located in the <i>B. rapa</i> portion (genome A) of the amphidiploid <i>B. rapa/B. oleracea</i> genome of <i>B. napus</i>.', 'Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Plant Biotechnology Office', NULL, NULL, NULL),
(74, 73, 'Low linolenic acid soybean produced through traditional cross-breeding to incorporate the novel trait from a naturally occurring <i>fan1</i> gene mutant that was selected for low linolenic acid.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(75, 28, 'Insect-resistant and glufosinate ammonium herbicide tolerant maize produced by inserting the <i>cry1F</i> gene from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> var. <i>aizawai</i> and the phosphinothricin N-acetyltransferase encoding gene from <i>Streptomyces viridochromogenes</i>.', NULL, NULL, 'DAS-Ø15Ø7-1', NULL, NULL),
(76, 75, 'Corn root worm resistant maize produced by inserting the <i>cry3Bb1<i> gene from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> subsp. <i>kumamotoensis</i>.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(77, 76, 'Tolerance to the imidazolinone herbicide, imazethapyr, induced by chemical mutagenesis of the acetolactate synthase (ALS) enzyme using ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS).', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(78, 77, 'Insect resistant cotton derived by transformation of the DP50B parent variety, which contained event 531 (expressing Cry1Ac protein), with purified plasmid DNA containing the <i>cry2Ab2</i> gene from <i>B. thuringiensis</i> subsp. <i>kurstaki</i>.', '', '', 'MON-15985-7', NULL, NULL),
(79, 78, 'Lepidopteran insect resistant and glufosinate ammonium herbicide-tolerant  maize variety produced by inserting the <i>cry1F</i> gene from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> var <i>aizawai</i> and the  phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (PAT) from <i>Streptomyces hygroscopicus</i>.', 'The DAS-06275-8 event contains a synthetic truncated cry1F gene optimized for maize expression (mocry1F) which was transformed into maize plants using Agrobacterium transformation. The mocry1F gene encodes a truncated, core insecticidal crystal protein (ICP) that is identical in amino acid sequence to the native Cry1F protein and to the Cry1F protein expressed in Event 1507. Cry1F expression levels are efficacious for control of the lepidopteran pest European corn borer and other pests such as black cutworm (Agrostis ipsilon), fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda.) and southwestern corn borer (Diatraea grandiosella). The DAS-06275-8 event also contains the phosphinothricin acetyltransferase bar gene isolated from the bacterium Streptomyces hygroscopicus which is used as a selectable marker and to confer tolerance to glufosinate-ammonium. The BAR protein, expressed from the bar gene, acetylates phosphinothricin conferring tolerance to a chemically synthesized phosphinothricin such as the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium. Glufosinate-ammonium is a broad spectrum, non-systemic, non-selective herbicide.', NULL, 'DAS-Ø6275-8', NULL, NULL),
(80, 79, 'Glyphosate tolerant wheat variety produced by inserting a modified 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) encoding gene from the soil bacterium <i>Agrobacterium tumefaciens</i>, strain CP4.', 'Monsanto used Bobwhite spring wheat (designated as MON 71900) as the parental variety to produce Roundup Ready® wheat event MON 71800. Event MON 71800 was developed through Agrobacterium-mediated transformation using the double border, binary vector PVTXGT10. The vector consists of the T-DNA segment intended for transformation, as well as the backbone DNA which is not expected to be incorporated into the transformed wheat.<br>The T-DNA contains two cp4 epsps gene cassettes and the left and right T-DNA border sequences. The segment is approximately 7.0 Kb in size. The cp4 epsps coding sequence in both cassettes is derived from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 and begins with a leader chloroplast transit peptide coding sequence (ArabTP) derived from the Arabidopsis thaliana epsps gene. The ArabTP transit peptide directs the CP4 EPSPS protein expressed in event MON 71800 to chloroplasts. The ArabTP-cp4 epsps fusion coding sequence in each cassette is followed by the 3'' non-translated region of the nopaline synthase gene (nos 3'') from Agrobacterium tumefaciens that provides the transcriptional termination signal. The upstream regulatory sequence of the first cassette consists of the 5'' region of the rice actin1 gene (Pract1- ract1I) which contains the promoter, transcription start site and the first intron. The upstream regulatory sequence of the second cassette consists of an enhanced 35S promoter from the cauliflower mosaic virus (CMV) (P-e35S) and the intron of the corn heat shock protein gene (hsp70I). The two different promoters were used to drive expression of the gene product in both vegetative and reproductive tissues.', 'U.S. Food and Drug Administration', 'MON-TAE-HT0001', NULL, NULL),
(81, 80, 'Glyphosate tolerance derived by inserting a modified 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) encoding gene from <i>Agrobacterium tumefaciens</i>.', 'The intended effect of this genetic modification of <i>A. stolonifera</i> is to confer tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. Monsanto and Scotts achieved this by transformation of the parent bentgrass line B99061R with a 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (<i>epsps</i>) gene from <i>Agrobacterium</i> sp. CP4 strain. The EPSPS protein encoded by this gene is resistant to glyphosate inhibition.', NULL, 'SCO-AST-HT0001-A', NULL, NULL),
(82, 81, 'Introduction of the glufosinate ammonium herbicide tolerance trait from transgenic <i>B. napus</i> line T45.  This trait is mediated by the phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (PAT) encoding gene from <i>S. viridochromogenes</i>.', 'The <i>Brassica rapa</i> canola hybrid, HCR-1, was derived from an inter-specific cross with the <i>B. napus</i> transformation event T45, that expresses a novel tolerance to glufosinate ammonium. This tolerance will allow the use of glufosinate ammonium as a post-emergence herbicide, thus providing an alternative for weed control in canola production, and reducing reliance on soil-incorporated herbicides. B. napus, transformed with the gene conferring glufosinate ammonium tolerance has been approved in May 1996.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(83, 82, 'Glufosinate ammonium herbicide tolerant cotton produced by inserting a modified phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (PAT) encoding gene from the soil bacterium <i>Streptomyces hygroscopicus</i>.', 'LLCotton25 has been genetically engineered to contain the phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (PAT) encoding <i>bar</i> gene from <i>Streptomyces hygroscopicus</I> strain ATCC21705.  The PAT enzyme catalyzes the conversion of L-phosphinothricin, the active ingredient in glufosinate ammonium containing herbicides, to an inactive form, thus conferring tolerance to the herbicide.  Expression of the introduced gene was controlled in part by gene sequences from the plant virus, cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) and the <i>nos</i> terminator from <i>Agrobacterium tumefaciens</i>.  The transgenic variety was produced via <i>Agrobacterium</i>-mediated transformation of Coker 312 cotton.', NULL, 'LLCotton25', NULL, NULL),
(84, 83, 'Reduced nicotine content through introduction of a second copy of the tobacco quinolinic acid phosphoribosyltransferase (QTPase) in the antisense orientation.  The NPTII encoding gene from <i>E. coli</i> was introduced as a selectable marker to identify transformants.', NULL, NULL, 'VTI-NTA-PQ0020-A', NULL, NULL),
(85, 86, 'Tolerance to imidazolinone herbicides by selection of a naturally occurring mutant.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(86, 87, 'Selection for a mutagenized version of the enzyme acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS), also known as acetolactate synthase (ALS) or acetolactate pyruvate- lyase.', 'Imidazolinone herbicides are active against the enzyme acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS), also known as acetolactate synthase (ALS) or acetolactate pyruvate- lyase. <br>This enzyme catalyzes the first step in the biosynthesis of the essential branched chain amino acids isoleucine, leucine and valine. Herbicide induced AHAS inhibition results in a lethal decrease in protein synthesis. Unmodified wheat is not tolerant to imidazolinones, while soybeans, peas, white beans and kidney beans are naturally tolerant to them. <br>Depending on the species, plants contain single or multiple copies of the AHAS genes. The genome of <i>T. aestivum</i> is believed to contain an AHAS multigene family. <br>Modifications of AHAS genes in various plant species can result in herbicide tolerant phenotypes and typically consist of one amino acid substitution, sufficient to alter the binding site for imidazolinones such that the herbicide no longer inhibits the AHAS enzyme. Several modified AHAS plants have been isolated.<br>AP602CL was selected  from a population of <i>T. aestivum</i> derived by chemical-induced mutagenesis of seed of the wheat variety Gunner.  One mutant, tolerant to imidazoline was selected and designated AP602CL.  Tolerance to imadazoline was demonstrated by comparison of the activity of the AHAS enzyme extracted from AP602CL to that of wild type plants.', 'Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Plant Biosafety Office', NULL, NULL, NULL),
(87, 88, 'Selection for a mutagenized version of the enzyme acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS), also known as acetolactate synthase (ALS) or acetolactate pyruvate- lyase.', 'BASF Canada has developed a new wheat line, designated Teal 11A, which exhibits tolerance to imazamox and imazethapyr, imidazolinone herbicides. This new wheat line will be utilized in the CLEARFIELD™ wheat breeding programs.<br>The development of the CLEARFIELD™ wheat line Teal 11A was accomplished using chemically induced seed mutagenesis. The herbicide tolerance trait is conferred by a single point mutation modification of the acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS) gene such that this enzyme, the target of imidazolinone herbicides, is no longer affected by imazamox and imazethapyr.', 'Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Plant Biosafety Office', NULL, NULL, NULL),
(88, 89, 'Selection for a mutagenized version of the enzyme acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS), also known as acetolactate synthase (ALS) or acetolactate pyruvate- lyase.', 'BASF Canada has developed a lentil line tolerant to imidazolinone herbicides. This L. culinaris line, designated line RH44, exhibited no significant injury when treated with imidazolinone herbicides at normal field application rates. This will allow the use of imidazolinones in postemergence on lentil crops, thus providing an alternative means of weed control in lentil production.<br>The development of line RH44 was accomplished using chemically induced seed mutagenesis. The herbicide tolerance trait is conferred by a single point mutation modification of the acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS) gene such that this enzyme, the target of imidazolinone herbicides, is no longer affected by imidazolinones.', 'Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Plant Biosafety Office', NULL, NULL, NULL),
(89, 90, 'Selection for a mutagenized version of the enzyme acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS), also known as acetolactate synthase (ALS) or acetolactate pyruvate- lyase.', 'Imidazolinone herbicides are active against the enzyme acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS), also known as acetolactate synthase (ALS) or acetolactate pyruvate- lyase. <br>This enzyme catalyzes the first step in the biosynthesis of the essential branched chain amino acids isoleucine, leucine and valine. Herbicide induced AHAS inhibition results in a lethal decrease in protein synthesis. Unmodified wheat is not tolerant to imidazolinones, while soybeans, peas, white beans and kidney beans are naturally tolerant to them. <br>Depending on the species, plants contain single or multiple copies of the AHAS genes. The genome of <i>T. aestivum</i> is believed to contain an AHAS multigene family. <br>Modifications of AHAS genes in various plant species can result in herbicide tolerant phenotypes and typically consist of one amino acid substitution, sufficient to alter the binding site for imidazolinones such that the herbicide no longer inhibits the AHAS enzyme. Several modified AHAS plants have been isolated.<br>AP205CL was selected  from a population of <i>T. aestivum</i> derived by chemical-induced mutagenesis of seed of the wheat variety Gunner.  One mutant, tolerant to imidazoline was selected and designated AP205CL.  Tolerance to imadazoline was demonstrated by comparison of the activity of the AHAS enzyme extracted from AP205CL to that of wild type plants.', 'Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Plant Biosafety Office', NULL, NULL, NULL),
(90, 91, 'Tolerance to the imidazolinone herbicide, imazethapyr, induced by chemical mutagenesis of the acetolactate synthase (ALS) enzyme using ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS).', 'Imidazolinone herbicides are active against the enzyme acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS), also known as acetolactate synthase (ALS).<br>AHAS is an enzyme found in bacteria, certain other micro-organisms and plants. This enzyme catalyzes the first step in the biosynthesis of the essential branched chain amino acids isoleucine leucine and valine. Herbicide induced AHAS inhibition results in a lethal decrease in protein synthesis. Unmodified rice is not tolerant to imidazolinone herbicides.<br>A single amino acid substitution in the AHAS gene, sufficient to alter the binding site for imdazolinone herbicides such that Imazethapyr no longer inhibits the AHAS enzyme, resulted in a herbicide tolerant phenotype.<br>The novel Imazethapyr tolerance is under the control of the native AHAS promoter and is believed to be constitutively expressed. Sequence information from the modified AHAS gene was submitted for PWC16.<br>The tolerance to Imazethapyr was demonstrated by comparison of the activity of the AHAS enzyme extracted from PWC16 rice plants to that of the unmodified parental rice plants. The levels of valine, leucine and isoleucine produced in rice are regulated by feedback inhibition. BASF provided data to support the claim that the modified AHAS does not affect feedback inhibition and hence, the regulation and levels of these amino acids.', 'Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Plant Biosafety Office', NULL, NULL, NULL),
(91, 92, 'Insect-resistant cotton produced by inserting the cry1F gene from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i>var.<i> aizawai</i>.  The PAT encoding gene from <i>Streptomyces viridochromogenes</i> was introduced as a selectable marker.', 'Dow AgroSciences have developed cotton (<i>Gossypium hirsutum</i>) line 281-24-236 through a specific genetic modification of the Acala cotton line GC510 (B690) to be resistant to lepidopteran insects. This novel variety produces a version of the insecticidal protein, Cry1F, derived from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> var. <i>aizawai</i>. Delta-endotoxins, such as Cry1F protein, act by selectively binding to specific receptors localized on the brush border midgut epithelium of susceptible insect species. Following binding, cation-specific pores are formed that disrupt midgut ion flow, causing gut paralysis and eventual death due to bacterial sepsis. Cry1F is lethal only when eaten by the larvae of lepidopteran insects, and its specificity of action is directly attributable to the presence of specific binding sites in the target insects. There are no binding sites for the d-endotoxins of <i>B. thuringiensis</i> on the surface of mammalian intestinal cells, therefore, livestock animals and humans are not susceptible to these proteins.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(92, 93, 'Insect-resistant cotton produced by inserting the <i>cry1Ac</i> gene from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i>subsp. <i>kurstaki</i>.  The PAT encoding gene from <i>Streptomyces viridochromogenes</i> was introduced as a selectable marker.', 'Dow AgroSciences have developed cotton (<i>Gossypium hirsutum</i>) line 3006-210-23 through a specific genetic modification of the Acala cotton line GC510 (B690) to be resistant to lepidopteran insects. This novel variety produces a version of the insecticidal protein, Cry1Ac, derived from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i>subspr. <i>kurstaki</i>. Delta-endotoxins, such as Cry1Ac protein, act by selectively binding to specific receptors localized on the brush border midgut epithelium of susceptible insect species. Following binding, cation-specific pores are formed that disrupt midgut ion flow, causing gut paralysis and eventual death due to bacterial sepsis. Cry1Ac is lethal only when eaten by the larvae of lepidopteran insects, and its specificity of action is directly attributable to the presence of specific binding sites in the target insects. There are no binding sites for the d-endotoxins of <i>B. thuringiensis</i> on the surface of mammalian intestinal cells, therefore, livestock animals and humans are not susceptible to these proteins.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(93, 94, 'Glyphosate herbicide tolerant sugar beet produced by inserting a gene encoding the enzyme 5-enolypyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) from the CP4 strain of <i>Agrobacterium tumefaciens</i>.', 'The intended effect of the genetic modification is to confer tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate [N-phosphonomethyl glycine], which is the active ingredient in Roundup®. Resistance is conferred by the introduction of the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) derived from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 into sugar beet. Glyphosate functions as a herbicide by inhibiting the endogenous EPSPS enzyme, which catalyzes a reaction necessary for the synthesis of aromatic amino acids. The EPSPS enzyme derived from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 that is introduced by the H7-1 transformation event has reduced affinity for glyphosate as compared with the native plant EPSPS enzyme. Therefore, the presence of the new enzyme in plant tissues prevents deleterious effects of glyphosate on aromatic amino acid synthesis in this transgenic sugar beet variety.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(94, 95, 'Corn rootworm-resistant maize produced by inserting the <i>cry34Ab1</i>  and <i>cry35Ab1</i> genes from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> strain PS149B1.  The PAT encoding gene from <i>Streptomyces viridochromogenes</i> was introduced as a selectable marker.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(95, 96, 'Corn rootworm-resistant maize produced by inserting the <i>cry3Bb1</i> gene from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> subspecies <i>kumamotoensis</i> strain EG4691.  Glyphosate tolerance derived by inserting a 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) encoding gene from <i>Agrobacterium tumefaciens</i> strain CP4.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(96, 97, 'Glyphosate herbicide tolerant cotton produced by inserting two genes encoding the enzyme 5-enolypyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) from the CP4 strain of <i>Agrobacterium tumefaciens</i>.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(97, 98, 'WideStrike™, a stacked insect-resistant cotton derived from conventional cross-breeding of parental lines 3006-210-23 (OECD identifier: DAS-21Ø23-5) and 281-24-236 (OECD identifier: DAS-24236-5).', '<p style="text-align: justify;">WideStrike&trade; cotton (OECD identifier: DAS-21&Oslash;23-5 x DAS-24236-5) was produced by cross-breeding two insect-resistant cotton lines: 281-24-236 (OECD identifier: DAS-24236-5) and 3006-210-23 (OECD identifier: DAS-21&Oslash;23-5). Each of these lines expresses an insecticidal protein. This stacked cotton line is a product of traditional plant breeding, and therefore is not automatically subject to regulation in all jurisdictions as are transgenic plants resulting from recombinant DNA technologies. Certain jurisdictions may request notification in advance of the release of a stacked hybrid, or may request information to conduct an environmental and food safety assessment. Examples of jurisdictions that require either notification or information about stacked hybrids prior to their release into the environment, and for use in human food and livestock feed are Canada and Japan. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviews stacked events when these are the result of stacking two or more plant-incorporated insecticidal proteins, such as WideStrike&trade; cotton. WideStrike&trade; expresses two novel proteins: Cry1F and Cry1Ac, delta-endotoxins which confers resistance to lepidopteran pests of cotton, such as the cotton bollworm, pink bollworm and tobacco budworm. The insecticidal protein Cry1F is produced by the <i>cry</i>1F gene from cotton line 281-24-236, and Cry1Ac is produced by the <i>cry</i>1Ac gene from the cotton line 3006-210-23. The <i>pat</i> gene is also expressed in WideStrike&trade;. This gene produces the PAT protein (phosphinothricin acetyltransferate) which confers resistance to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium, and inserted solely to be used as a selectable marker during the transformation that led to the production of 281-24-23 and 3006-210-23. For a full description of each parental line, please refer to the individual product descriptions in the crop database for 281-24-236 and 3006-210-23. The inserted genes and their gene products in WideStrike&trade; cotton have a history of safe use, and have undergone prior review and approval by several regulatory agencies. No interactions among the gene products or negative synergistic effects are expected in the stacked line. Since neither Cry1F, nor Cry1Ac, have enzymatic activity, these proteins have no effect on plant metabolism. The PAT protein has a very high affinity for L-Phosphinothricin, the active ingredient in the herbicide glufosinate ammonium. Cry1F, Cry1Ac and PAT are therefore not expected to interact within, nor affect the metabolism of the stacked hybrid. The EPA conducted an environmental hazard assessment of WideStrike&trade; cotton. Data on the effects of the Cry1F and Cry1Ac were assessed separately, and in combination to detect possible synergistic effects. No synergistic effects were observed, nor any increase in the host range of non-target organisms, from the stacking of both Cry proteins. No harmful effects to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife were observed, and if was concluded that the cultivation of the stacked line would not be hazardous to non-target terrestrial, aquatic and soil organisms.</p>\n', NULL, NULL, NULL, '2013-08-30 17:18:50'),
(98, 99, 'WideStrike™/Roundup Ready® cotton, a stacked insect-resistant and glyphosate-tolerant cotton derived from conventional cross-breeding of WideStrike cotton (OECD identifier: DAS-21Ø23-5 x DAS-24236-5) with MON1445 (OECD identifier: MON-Ø1445-2).', '<p style="text-align: justify;">WideStrike&trade; x MON1445 (OECD identifier: DAS-21&Oslash;23-5 x DAS-24236-5 x MON-&Oslash;1445-2) was produced by crossing WideStrike&trade; insect resistant cotton (OECD identifier: DAS-21&Oslash;23-5 x DAS-24236-5) with the herbicide-tolerant cotton line MON1445 (OECD identifier: MON-&Oslash;1445-2). This stacked cotton line is a product of traditional plant breeding, and therefore is not automatically subject to regulation in all jurisdictions as are transgenic plants resulting from recombinant DNA technologies. Certain jurisdictions may request notification in advance of the release of a stacked hybrid, or may request information to conduct an environmental and food safety assessment. Examples of jurisdictions that require either notification or information about stacked hybrids prior to their release into the environment, and for use in human food and livestock feed are Canada and Japan. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviews stacked events when these are the result of stacking two or more plant-incorporated insecticidal proteins, such as WideStrike&trade; cotton.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The stacked cotton line WideStrike&trade; x MON1445 expresses four novel proteins: the delta-endotoxins Cry1F and Cry1Ac, which confer resistance to the lepidopteran pests of cotton, such as the cotton bollworm, pink bollworm and tobacco budworm, the CP4 EPSPS protein, which confers tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, and the PAT protein, which confers tolerance to glufosinate ammonium. The insecticidal proteins Cry1F and Cry1Ac are produced by the <i>cry</i>1F gene and <i>cry</i>1Ac genes respectively, both of which are from WideStrike&trade;. The cotton line WideStrike&trade; was produced by crossing line 281-24-236 with line 3006-210-23. The PAT protein in WideStrike&trade; is produced by the <i>pat</i> gene: this expressed novel protein was intended solely for use as a selectable marker during plant transformation. The CP4 EPSPS protein is produced by the <i>cp4 epsps</i> gene from MON1445. For a full description of each parental line please refer to the individual product descriptions in the crop database for 281-24-236 and 3006-210-23 (the parental lines of WideStrike&trade; cotton) and MON1445.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The inserted genes and their gene products have a history of safe use, and have undergone prior review and approval by several regulatory agencies. No interactions among the gene products or negative synergistic effects are expected in this stacked line. Since neither Cry1F, nor Cry1Ac are enzymes, these proteins have no effect on plant metabolism. The CP4 EPSPS has a very high affinity for its substrates phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) and shikimate-3-phosphate, which are part of the shikimate metabolic pathway. The PAT protein has a very high affinity for L-Phosphinothricin, the active ingredient in the herbicide glufosinate ammonium. CP4 EPSPS, Cry1F, Cry1Ac, and PAT are therefore not expected to interact within, nor affect the metabolism of the stacked line.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The EPA conducted an environmental hazard assessment ofWideStrike&trade; cotton. Data on the effects of the Cry1F and Cry1Ac were assessed separately, and in combination to detect possible synergistic effects. No synergistic effects were observed, nor any increase in the host range of non-target organisms, from the stacking of both Cry proteins. No harmful effects to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife were observed, and if was concluded that the cultivation of the stacked line would not be hazardous to non-target terrestrial, aquatic and soil organisms.</p>\n', NULL, NULL, NULL, '2013-08-30 17:19:28'),
(99, 100, 'Stacked insect resistant corn hybrid derived from conventional cross-breeding of the parental lines MON863 (OECD identifier: MON-ØØ863-5) and MON810 (OECD identifier: MON-ØØ81Ø-6)', 'MON863 X MON810 (OECD identifier: MON-ØØ863-5 x MON-ØØ81Ø-6) maize is an F1 hybrid resulting from the hybridization of two insect-resistant maize lines: MON863 (OECD identifier: MON-ØØ863-5) which is resistant to coleopterans, such as the Corn Rootworm, and MON810 (OECD identifier: MON-ØØ81Ø-6), which is resistant to lepidopterans, such as the European Corn Borer. This stacked maize hybrid is a product of traditional plant breeding, and therefore is not automatically subject to regulation in all jurisdictions as are transgenic plants resulting from recombinant DNA technologies. Certain jurisdictions may request notification in advance of the release of a stacked hybrid, or may request information to conduct an environmental and food safety assessment.  Examples of jurisdictions that require either notification or information about stacked hybrids prior to their release into the environment, and for use in human food and livestock feed are Canada and Japan.<br> <br>The stacked hybrid MON863 X MON810 expresses two novel insecticidal proteins: Cry3Bb1, a delta-endotoxin which confers resistance to coleopterans, and the delta-endotoxin Cry1Ab which confers resistance to the lepidopterans.  Cry3Bb1 is produced by the <i>cry</i>3Bb1 gene from MON863, and Cry1Ab, by the <i>cry</i>1Ab gene from MON810.  The novel traits of each parent line have been combined, through traditional plant breeding, to produce this new hybrid.  For a full description of each parent line please refer to the individual product descriptions in the crop database for <a href="dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=MON863&frmat=LONG"><b>MON863</b></a> and <a href="dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=MON810&frmat=LONG"><b>MON810</b></a>.<br>The inserted genes and their gene products have a history of safe use, and have undergone review and approval by several regulatory agencies.  No interactions among the gene products or negative synergistic effects are expected in the stacked hybrid.  Neither Cry1Ab, nor Cry3Bb1 are enzymes and therefore have no effect on plant metabolism.  These Cry proteins are therefore not expected to interact within, nor affect the metabolism of the stacked hybrid.  <br>Studies were conducted to compare the resistance to coleopterans and lepidopterans in the stacked hybrid and each parental line.  There were no statistically significant differences in the levels of resistance to the target insects between the stacked hybrid and either of the parental lines.  Non-target insects that were found to be unaffected by the insecticidal proteins in MON863 and MON810 were also unaffected by the combination of the proteins in the stacked hybrid.  Thus, the hybridization of MON863 and MON810 did not affect the expression levels of the <i>cry</i>1Ab and <i>cry</i>3Bb genes, and there was no observed synergistic effect of simultaneous exposure to both proteins.  <br>Heterosis is expected in F1 hybrids.  An example of heterosis is a substantial increase in yield in the F1 hybrid compared to the parental lines.  The stacked hybrid MON863 X MON810 is therefore expected to display heterosis, as would any conventional F1 hybrid.  Heterosis in this hybrid is not expected to be caused by the introduced genes, since the gene products are not expected to affect plant metabolism, or interact synergistically.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(100, 101, 'Stacked insect resistant and herbicide tolerant corn hybrid derived from conventional cross-breeding of the parental lines MON863 (OECD identifier:MON-ØØ863-5) and NK603 (OECD identifier: MON-ØØ6Ø3-6).', 'MON863 X NK603 OECD identifier: MON-ØØ863-5 x MON-ØØ6Ø3-6) maize is an F1 hybrid resulting from the hybridization of the insect-resistant maize inbred line MON863 (MON-ØØ863-5) and the herbicide-tolerant maize inbred line NK603 (MON-ØØ6Ø3-6). This stacked maize hybrid is a product of traditional plant breeding, and therefore is not automatically subject to regulation in all jurisdictions as are transgenic plants resulting from recombinant DNA technologies. Certain jurisdictions may request notification in advance of the release of a stacked hybrid, or may request information to conduct an environmental and food safety assessment.  Examples of jurisdictions that require either notification or information about stacked hybrids prior to their release into the environment, and for use in human food and livestock feed are Canada and Japan.<br> <br>The stacked hybrid MON863 X NK603 expresses two novel proteins: the delta-endotoxin Cry3Bb1, which is insecticidal to coleopterans such as the Corn Rootworm, and CP4 EPSPS which confers tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate.  The CP4 EPSPS protein is produced by the <i>cp4 epsps</i> gene from NK603, and the insecticidal protein Cry3Bb1, by the <i>cry</i>3Bb1 gene from MON863.  The novel traits of each parent line have therefore been combined, using traditional plant breeding methods, to produce this new hybrid.  For a full description of each parent line please refer to the individual product descriptions in the crop database for <a href="dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=MON863&frmat=LONG"><b>MON863</b></a> and <a href="dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=NK603&frmat=LONG"><b>NK603</b></a>.<br>The inserted genes and their gene products have a history of safe use, and have undergone review and approval by several regulatory agencies.  No interactions among the gene products or negative synergistic effects are expected in the stacked hybrid.  The Cry3Bb protein is not an enzyme and therefore does not affect plant metabolism.  The CP4 EPSPS has high affinity for its substrates phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) and shikimate-3-phosphate, which are part of the shikimate metabolic pathway.   CP4 EPSPS and Cry3Bb are therefore not expected to interact within nor affect the metabolism of the stacked hybrid.  Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that no toxic or allergenic products were formed as a result of the hybridization.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(101, 102, 'Stacked insect resistant and herbicide tolerant corn hybrid derived from conventional cross-breeding of the stacked hybrid MON-ØØ863-5 x MON-ØØ81Ø-6 and NK603 (OECD identifier:MON-ØØ6Ø3-6).', 'MON863 X MON810 X NK603 (OECD identifier: MON-ØØ863-5 x MON-ØØ81Ø-6 x MON-ØØ6Ø3-6) maize is an F1 hybrid resulting from the hybridization of the insect-resistant stacked maize inbred line MON863 X MON810 (MON-ØØ863-5 x MON-ØØ81Ø-6), and the herbicide tolerant inbred line NK603 (MON-ØØ6Ø3-6).  This F1 stacked hybrid is resistant to coleopterans, such as the Corn Rootworm, lepidopterans, such as the European Corn Borer, and is tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate.   MON863 X MON810 X NK603 is a product of traditional plant breeding, and therefore is not automatically subject to regulation in all jurisdictions as are transgenic plants resulting from recombinant DNA technologies. Certain jurisdictions may request notification in advance of the release of a stacked hybrid, or may request information to conduct an environmental and food safety assessment.  Examples of jurisdictions that require either notification or information about stacked hybrids prior to their release into the environment, and for use in human food and livestock feed are Canada and Japan.<br> <br>The stacked hybrid MON863 X MON810 X NK603 expresses two novel insecticidal proteins: Cry3Bb1, a delta-endotoxin which confers resistance to coleopterans such as the Corn Rootworm, and the delta-endotoxin Cry1Ab which confers resistance to lepidopterans, such as the European Corn Borer.  The stacked hybrid also expresses the novel protein CP4 EPSPS which confers glyphosate tolerance.  Cry3Bb1 is produced by the <i>cry</i>3Bb1 gene from MON863, and Cry1Ab, by the <i>cry</i>1Ab gene from MON810.  The CP4 EPSPS protein is produced by the <i>cp4epsps</i> gene from NK603.  The novel traits of each parent line have been combined, using traditional plant breeding methods, to produce this new hybrid.  For a full description of each parent line please refer to the individual product descriptions in the crop database for <a href="dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=MON863&frmat=LONG"><b>MON863</b></a>, <a href="dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=MON810&frmat=LONG"><b>MON810</b></a>, and <a href="dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=NK603&frmat=LONG"><b>NK603</b></a>.<br>The inserted genes and their gene products have a history of safe use, and have undergone review and approval by several regulatory agencies.  No interactions among the gene products or negative synergistic effects are expected in the stacked hybrid.  Neither Cry1Ab, nor Cry3Bb1 are enzymes and therefore have no effect on plant metabolism. The CP4 EPSPS has high affinity for its substrates phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) and shikimate-3-phosphate, which are part of the shikimate metabolic pathway.  CP4 EPSPS, Cry1Ab and Cry3Bb1 are therefore not expected to interact within, nor affect the metabolism of the stacked hybrid. <br>Studies were conducted to compare the resistance to coleopterans and lepidopterans in the stacked hybrid with each parental line.  There were no statistically significant differences in the levels of resistance to the target insects between the stacked hybrid and either of the parental lines, MON 863 and MON810.  Non-target insects that were found to be unaffected by the insecticidal proteins in MON863 and MON810 were also unaffected by the combination of the proteins in the stacked hybrid.  Thus, the hybridization of MON863 and MON810 did not affect the expression levels of the <i>cry</i>1Ab and <i>cry</i>3Bb genes, and there was no observed synergistic effect of simultaneous exposure to both proteins.  <br>Studies were also conducted to compare the tolerance to glyphosate between the stacked cotton line and each parental line.  There were no significant differences in the tolerance to applications of glyphosate in the stacked line, compared to the parental lines.<br>Heterosis is expected in F1 hybrids.  An example of heterosis is a substantial increase in yield in the F1 hybrid compared to the parental lines.  The stacked hybrid NK603 X MON810 is therefore expected to display heterosis, as would any conventional F1 hybrid.  Heterosis in this hybrid is not expected to be caused by the introduced genes, since the gene products are not expected to interact synergistically.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(102, 103, 'Stacked insect resistant and herbicide tolerant corn hybrid derived from conventional cross-breeding of the parental lines NK603 (OECD identifier: MON-ØØ6Ø3-6) and MON810 (OECD identifier: MON-ØØ81Ø-6).', 'NK603 X MON810 (OECD identifier: MON-ØØ6Ø3-6 x MON-ØØ81Ø-6) maize is an F1 hybrid resulting from the hybridization of the herbicide-tolerant maize inbred NK603 (MON-ØØ6Ø3-6) with the insect-resistant maize inbred MON 810 (MON-ØØ81Ø-6). This stacked maize hybrid is a product of traditional plant breeding, and therefore is not automatically subject to regulation in all jurisdictions as are transgenic plants resulting from recombinant DNA technologies. Certain jurisdictions may request notification in advance of the release of a stacked hybrid, or may request information to conduct an environmental and food safety assessment.  Examples of jurisdictions that require either notification or information about stacked hybrids prior to their release into the environment, and for use in human food and livestock feed are Canada and Japan.<br> <br>The stacked hybrid NK603 X MON810 expresses two novel proteins:  CP4 EPSPS which confers tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, and the delta-endotoxin Cry1Ab which confers resistance to the European Corn Borer and other lepidopterans.  The CP4 EPSPS protein is produced by the <i>cp4 epsps</i> gene from NK603, and the insecticidal protein Cry1Ab, by the <i>cry</i>1Ab gene from MON810.  The novel traits of each parent line have been combined, through traditional plant breeding, to produce this new hybrid.  For a full description of each parent line please refer to the individual product descriptions in the crop database for <a href="dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=NK603&frmat=LONG"><b>NK603</b></a> and <a href="dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=MON810&frmat=LONG"><b>MON810</b></a>.<br>The inserted genes and their gene products have a history of safe use, and have undergone review and approval by several regulatory agencies.  No interactions among the gene products or negative synergistic effects are expected in the stacked hybrid.  The Cry1Ab protein is not an enzyme and therefore does not affect plant metabolism.  The CP4 EPSPS has high affinity for its substrates phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) and shikimate-3-phosphate, which are part of the shikimate metabolic pathway.   CP4 EPSPS and Cry1Ab are therefore not expected to interact within, nor affect the metabolism of the stacked hybrid.  <br>Studies were conducted to compare the resistance to lepidopterans and tolerance to glyphosate between the stacked cotton line and each parental line.  There were no significant differences in the resistance to the lepidopteran pests, or in the tolerance to applications of glyphosate in the stacked line, compared to the parental lines.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(103, 104, 'Stacked insect resistant and herbicide tolerant corn hybrid derived from conventional cross-breeding of the parental lines T25 (OECD identifier: ACS-ZMØØ3-2) and MON810 (OECD identifier:MON-ØØ81Ø-6).', 'T25 X MON810 (OECD identifier: ACS-ZMØØ3-2 X MON-ØØ81Ø-6) maize is an F1 hybrid resulting from the hybridization of the herbicide-tolerant maize inbred T25 (ACS-ZMØØ3-2) with the insect-resistant inbred maize MON810 (MON-ØØ81Ø-6). This stacked maize hybrid is a product of traditional plant breeding, and therefore is not automatically subject to regulation in all jurisdictions as are transgenic plants resulting from recombinant DNA technologies. Certain jurisdictions may request notification in advance of the release of a stacked hybrid, or may request information to conduct an environmental and food safety assessment.  Examples of jurisdictions that require either notification or information about stacked hybrids prior to their release into the environment, and for use in human food and livestock feed are Canada and Japan.<br> <br>The stacked hybrid T25 X MON810 expresses two novel proteins: the PAT protein which confers tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium, and the delta-endotoxin Cry1Ab which confers resistance to the European Corn Borer and other lepidopterans,   The PAT protein is produced by the <i>pat</i> gene from T25, and the insecticidal protein is produced by the <i>cry</i>1Ab from MON810.  The novel traits of each parental line have been combined, through traditional plant breeding, to produce this new hybrid.  For a full description of each parental line please refer to the individual product descriptions in the crop database for <a href=" dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=T14%2C+T25&frmat=LONG"><b>T25</b></a> and <a href="dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=MON810&frmat=LONG"><b>MON810</b></a>.<br>The inserted genes and their gene products have a history of safe use, and have undergone review and approval by several regulatory agencies.  No interactions among the gene products or negative synergistic effects are expected in the stacked hybrid.  The Cry1Ab protein is not an enzyme and therefore does not affect plant metabolism.  The PAT protein has a high affinity for L-Phosphinothricin, the active ingredient in the herbicide glufosinate ammonium.   Cry1Ab and PAT are not expected to interact within, nor affect the metabolism of the stacked hybrid.  <br>Heterosis is expected in F1 hybrids.  An example of heterosis is a substantial increase in yield in the F1 hybrid compared to the parental lines.  The stacked hybrid G21 X MON810 is therefore expected to display heterosis, as would any conventional F1 hybrid.  Heterosis in this hybrid is not expected to be caused by the introduced genes, since the gene products are not expected to interact synergistically.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL);
INSERT INTO `gmcropdatabase_events_descriptions` (`id`, `eventId`, `short`, `long`, `source`, `trialCode`, `created`, `updated`) VALUES
(104, 105, 'Stacked insect resistant and herbicide tolerant corn hybrid derived from conventional cross-breeding of the parental lines 1507 (OECD identifier: DAS-Ø15Ø7-1) and NK603 (OECD identifier: MON-ØØ6Ø3-6).', 'TC1507 X NK603 (OECD identifier: DAS-Ø15Ø7-1 x MON-ØØ6Ø3-6) maize is an F1 hybrid resulting from the hybridization of the insect-resistant inbred maize TC1507 ( DAS-Ø15Ø7-1) with the herbicide-tolerant maize inbred NK603 (MON-ØØ6Ø3-6). This stacked maize hybrid is a product of traditional plant breeding, and therefore is not automatically subject to regulation in all jurisdictions as are transgenic plants resulting from recombinant DNA technologies. Certain jurisdictions may request notification in advance of the release of a stacked hybrid, or may request information to conduct an environmental and food safety assessment.  Examples of jurisdictions that require either notification or information about stacked hybrids prior to their release into the environment, and for use in human food and livestock feed are Canada and Japan.<br> <br>The stacked hybrid TC1507 X NK603 expresses three novel proteins: the delta-endotoxin Cry1F which confers resistance to the European Corn Borer and other lepidopterans, the PAT protein which confers tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium, and the CP4 EPSPS protein which confers resistance to the herbicide glyphosate.  The insecticidal protein is produced by the <i>cry</i>1F gene and PAT is produced by the <i>pat</i> gene, both from TC1507. The CP4 EPSPS protein is produced by the <i>cp4 epsps</i> gene from NK603. The novel traits of each parental line have been combined, through traditional plant breeding, to produce this new hybrid.  For a full description of each parental line please refer to the individual product descriptions in the crop database for <a href="dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=TC1507&frmat=LONG"><b>TC1507</b></a> and <a href="dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=NK603&frmat=LONG"><b>NK603</b></a>.<br>The inserted genes and their gene products have a history of safe use, and have undergone review and approval by several regulatory agencies.  No interactions among the gene products or negative synergistic effects are expected in the stacked hybrid.  The Cry1F protein is not an enzyme and therefore does not affect plant metabolism.  Both the PAT and CP4 EPSPS have high substrate affinities: PAT for L-Phosphinothricin, the active ingredient in glufosinate ammonium, and CP4 EPSPS for phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) and shikimate-3-phosphate, which are part of the shikimate metabolic pathway.   Since both PAT and CP4 EPSPS differ in substrates and in mode of action, these are not expected to interact within, nor affect the metabolism of the stacked hybrid.  <br>Southern blot analysis has confirmed that <i>cry</i>1F, <i>pat</i> and <i>cp4 epsps</i> genes are stably inherited in the stacked hybrid.  The expression levels of Cry1F, PAT and CP4 EPSPS were comparable to those of the parental lines.  The stacked hybrid displayed the same degree of tolerance to the herbicides glufosinate ammonium and glyphosate, as the parental lines.  <br>Heterosis is expected in F1 hybrids.  An example of heterosis is a substantial increase in yield in the F1 hybrid compared to the parental lines.  The stacked hybrid TC1507 X NK603 is therefore expected to display heterosis, as would any conventional F1 hybrid.  Heterosis in this hybrid is not expected to be caused by the introduced genes, since the gene products are not expected to interact synergistically.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(105, 106, 'Stacked insect resistant and herbicide tolerant corn hybrid derived from conventional cross-breeding of the parental lines GA21 (OECD identifider: MON-ØØØ21-9) and MON810 (OECD identifier: MON-ØØ81Ø-6).', 'GA21 X MON810 (OECD identifier: MON-ØØØ21-9 x MON-ØØ81Ø-6) maize is an F1 hybrid resulting from the hybridization of the herbicide-tolerant maize inbred GA21 (MON-ØØØ21-9) with the insect-resistant maize inbred MON810 (MON-ØØ81Ø-6). This stacked maize hybrid is a product of traditional plant breeding, and therefore is not automatically subject to regulation in all jurisdictions as are transgenic plants resulting from recombinant DNA technologies. Certain jurisdictions may request notification in advance of the release of a stacked hybrid, or may request information to conduct an environmental and food safety assessment.  Examples of jurisdictions that require either notification or information about stacked hybrids prior to their release into the environment, and for use in human food and livestock feed are Canada and Japan.<br> <br>The stacked hybrid GA21 X MON810 expresses two novel proteins: a modified EPSPS protein which confers tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, and the delta-endotoxin Cry1Ab which confers resistance to the European Corn Borer and other lepidopterans,   The modified EPSPS protein is produced by the <i>mepsps</i> gene from GA21, and the insecticidal protein Cry1Ab is produced by the <i>cry</i>1Ab from MON810.  The novel traits of each parental line have been combined, through traditional plant breeding, to produce this new hybrid.  For a full description of each parental line please refer to the individual product descriptions in the crop database for <a href="dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=GA21&frmat=LONG"><b>GA21</b></a> and <a href="dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=MON810&frmat=LONG"><b>MON810</b></a>.<br>The inserted genes and their gene products have a history of safe use, and have undergone review and approval by several regulatory agencies.  No interactions among the gene products or negative synergistic effects are expected in the stacked hybrid.  The Cry1Ab protein is not an enzyme and therefore does not affect plant metabolism.  The modified EPSPS has high affinity for its substrates phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) and shikimate-3-phosphate, which are part of the shikimate metabolic pathway.   EPSPS and Cry1Ab are therefore not expected to interact within, nor affect the metabolism of the stacked hybrid.  <br>Heterosis is expected in F1 hybrids.  An example of heterosis is a substantial increase in yield in the F1 hybrid compared to the parental lines.  The stacked hybrid GA21 X MON810 is therefore expected to display heterosis, as would any conventional F1 hybrid.  Heterosis in this hybrid is not expected to be caused by the introduced genes, since the gene products are not expected to interact synergistically.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(106, 107, 'Stacked insect resistant and herbicide tolerant cotton derived from conventional cross-breeding of the parental lines MON531 (OECD identifier: MON-ØØ531-6) and MON1445 (OECD identifier: MON-Ø1445-2).', '<p style="text-align: justify;">MON531 X MON1445 (OECD identifier: MON-&Oslash;&Oslash;531-6 x MON-&Oslash;1445-2) cotton is the product of the cross-breeding of the insect-resistant cotton line MON531 (MON-&Oslash;&Oslash;531-6) with the herbicide-tolerant cotton line MON1445 (MON-&Oslash;1445-2). This stacked cotton line is a product of traditional plant breeding, and therefore is not automatically subject to regulation in all jurisdictions as are transgenic plants resulting from recombinant DNA technologies. Certain jurisdictions may request notification in advance of the release of a stacked hybrid, or may request information to conduct an environmental and food safety assessment. Examples of jurisdictions that require either notification or information about stacked hybrids prior to their release into the environment, and for use in human food and livestock feed are Canada and Japan.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The stacked cotton line MON531 X MON1445 expresses two novel proteins: the delta-endotoxin Cry1Ac which confers resistance to the lepidopteran pests of cotton, such as the cotton bollworm, pink bollworm and tobacco budworm, and the CP4 EPSPS protein which confers tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. The insecticidal protein is produced by the <i>cry</i>1Ac gene from MON531, and the CP4 EPSPS protein is <i>cp4 epsps</i> gene from MON1445. The novel traits of each parental line have been combined, through traditional plant breeding, to produce this new cotton line. For a full description of each parental line please refer to the individual product descriptions in the crop database for MON531 and MON1445.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The inserted genes and their gene products have a history of safe use, and have undergone review and approval by several regulatory agencies. No interactions among the gene products or negative synergistic effects are expected in the stacked hybrid. The Cry1Ac protein is not an enzyme and therefore does not affect plant metabolism. The CP4 EPSPS has high affinity for its substrates phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) and shikimate-3-phosphate, which are part of the shikimate metabolic pathway. CP4 EPSPS and Cry1Ac are therefore not expected to interact within, nor affect the metabolism of the stacked line.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Studies were conducted to compare the resistance to lepidopterans and tolerance to glyphosate between the stacked cotton line and each parental line. There were no significant differences in the stacked line in the resistance to the lepidopteran pests, or in the tolerance to applications of glyphosate, compared to the parental lines.</p>\n', NULL, '', NULL, '2013-08-30 16:52:34'),
(107, 108, 'Stacked insect resistant and herbicide tolerant cotton derived from conventional cross-breeding of the parental lines 15985 (OECD identifier: MON-15985-7) and MON1445 (OECD identifier: MON-Ø1445-2).', '<p>15985 X MON1445 (OECD identifier: MON-15985-7 x MON-&Oslash;1445-2) cotton is the product of the cross-breeding of the insect-resistant cotton line 15985 (MON-15985-7) with the herbicide-tolerant cotton line MON1445 (OECD: MON-&Oslash;1445-2). This stacked cotton line is a product of traditional plant breeding, and therefore is not automatically subject to regulation in all jurisdictions as are transgenic plants resulting from recombinant DNA technologies. Certain jurisdictions may request notification in advance of the release of a stacked hybrid, or may request information to conduct an environmental and food safety assessment. Examples of jurisdictions that require either notification or information about stacked hybrids prior to their release into the environment, and for use in human food and livestock feed are Canada and Japan.<br />\r\n<br />\r\nThe stacked cotton line 15985 X MON1445 expresses three novel proteins: the delta-endotoxins Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab, both of which confer resistance to the lepidopteran pests of cotton, such as the cotton bollworm, pink bollworm and tobacco budworm, and the CP4 EPSPS protein which confers tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. The insecticidal proteins Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab produced by the <i>cry</i>1Ac gene and <i>cry</i>2Ab genes respectively, both of which are from 15985. The CP4 EPSPS protein is produced by the <i>cp4 epsps</i> gene from MON1445. The novel traits of each parental line have been combined, through traditional plant breeding, to produce this new cotton line. For a full description of each parental line please refer to the individual product descriptions in the crop database for <a href="dbase.php?action=ShowProd&amp;data=15985&amp;frmat=LONG"><b>15985</b></a> and <a href="dbase.php?action=ShowProd&amp;data=MON1445%2F1698&amp;frmat=LONG"><b>MON1445</b></a>.<br />\r\nThe inserted genes and their gene products have a history of safe use, and have undergone review and approval by several regulatory agencies. No interactions among the gene products or negative synergistic effects are expected in the stacked hybrid. Since neither Cry1Ac, nor Cry2Ab are enzymes, these proteins have no effect on plant metabolism. The CP4 EPSPS has high affinity for its substrates phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) and shikimate-3-phosphate, which are part of the shikimate metabolic pathway. CP4 EPSPS, Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab are therefore not expected to interact within, nor affect the metabolism of the stacked line.<br />\r\nStudies were conducted to compare the resistance to lepidopterans and tolerance to glyphosate between the stacked cotton line and each parental line. Results demonstrated that there were no significant differences in the stacked line in the resistance to the lepidopteran pests, or in the tolerance to applications of glyphosate, compared to the parental lines.</p>\r\n', NULL, NULL, NULL, '2013-09-02 13:13:42'),
(108, 109, 'Glyphosate herbicide tolerant alfalfa (lucerne) produced by inserting a gene encoding the enzyme 5-enolypyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) from the CP4 strain of <i>Agrobacterium tumefaciens</i>.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(109, 110, 'Insect-resistant cotton produced by inserting the <i>vip3A(a)</i> gene from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i>AB88.  The APH4 encoding gene from <i>E. coli</i> was introduced as a selectable marker.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(110, 111, 'Altered amino acid composition, specifically elevated levels of lysine, through the introduction of the <i>cordapA</i> gene,  derived from <i>Corynebacterium glutamicum</i>, encoding the enzyme dihydrodipicolinate synthase (cDHDPS).', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(111, 112, 'Stacked insect resistant and enhanced lysine content maize derived from conventional cross-breeding of the parental lines MON810 (OECD identifier: MON-ØØ81Ø-6) and LY038 (OECD identifier: REN-ØØØ38-3).', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(112, 114, 'Stacked insect resistant and glyphosate tolerant maize derived from conventional cross-breeding of the parental lines MON810 (OECD identifier: MON-ØØ81Ø-6) and MON88017 (OECD identifier:MON-88Ø17-3).  European corn borer (ECB) resistance is derived from a truncated form of the <i>cry1Ab</i> gene from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> subsp. kurstaki HD-1 present in MON810.  Corn rootworm resistance is derived from the <i>cry3Bb1</i> gene from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> subspecies <i>kumamotoensis</i> strain EG4691 present in MON88017.  Glyphosate tolerance is derived from a 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) encoding gene from <i>Agrobacterium tumefaciens</i> strain CP4 present in MON88017.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(113, 115, 'Stacked insect resistant and glyphosate tolerant cotton produced by conventional cross-breeding of the parental lines MON88913 (OECD identifier: MON-88913-8) and 15985 (OECD identifier: MON-15985-7).  Glyphosate tolerance is derived from MON88913 which contains two genes encoding the enzyme 5-enolypyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) from the CP4 strain of <i>Agrobacterium tumefaciens</i>.  Insect resistance is derived MON15985 which was produced by transformation of the DP50B parent variety, which contained event 531 (expressing Cry1Ac protein), with purified plasmid DNA containing the <i>cry2Ab</i> gene from <i>B. thuringiensis</i> subsp. <i>kurstaki</i>.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(114, 113, 'Corn rootworm resistant maize produced by transformation with a modified <i>cry3A</i> gene.  The phosphomannose isomerase gene from <i>E.coli</i> was used as a selectable marker.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(115, 119, 'Stacked insect-resistant and glyphosate-tolerant cotton derived from conventional cross-breeding of WideStrike cotton (OECD identifier: DAS-21Ø23-5 x DAS-24236-5) with MON88913, known as RoundupReady Flex (OECD identifier: MON-88913-8).', '', NULL, NULL, NULL, '2013-09-02 13:41:41'),
(116, 120, 'Stacked herbicide tolerant and insect resistant cotton combining tolerance to glufosinate ammonium herbicide from LLCotton25 (OECD identifier: ACS-GHØØ1-3) with resistance to insects from MON15985 (OECD identifier: MON-15985-7)', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(117, 126, 'Tolerance to imidazolinone herbicides induced by chemical mutagenesis of the acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS) gene using sodium azide.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(118, 121, 'Stacked insect resistant and herbicide tolerant maize produced by conventional cross breeding of parental lines BT11 (OECD unique identifier: SYN-BTØ11-1) and GA21 (OECD unique identifier: MON-ØØØ21-9).', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(119, 122, 'Selection for a mutagenized version of the enzyme acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS), also known as acetolactate synthase (ALS) or acetolactate pyruvate- lyase.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(120, 123, 'Tolerance to imidazolinone herbicides induced by chemical mutagenesis of the acetolactate synthase (ALS) enzyme using sodium azide.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(121, 124, 'Glufosinate ammonium herbicide tolerant rice produced by inserting a modified phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (PAT) encoding gene from the soil bacterium <i>Streptomyces hygroscopicus</i>).', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(122, 125, 'Glyphosate-tolerant soybean produced by inserting a modified 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) encoding <i>aroA (epsps)</i> gene from <i> Agrobacterium tumefaciens</i> CP4.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(123, 127, 'Plum pox virus (PPV) resistant plum tree produced through <i>Agrobacterium</i>-mediated transformation with a coat protein (CP) gene from the virus.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(124, 128, 'Stacked insect resistant and herbicide tolerant maize produced by conventional cross breeding of parental lines MIR604 (OECD unique identifier: SYN-IR6Ø5-5) and GA21 (OECD unique identifier: MON-ØØØ21-9).  Corn rootworm-resistance is derived from MIR604 which contains the <i>mcry3A</i> gene from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i>.  Tolerance to glyphosate herbcicide is derived from GA21.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(125, 129, 'Stacked insect resistant and herbicide tolerant maize produced by conventional cross breeding of parental lines BT11 (OECD unique identifier: SYN-BTØ11-1) and MIR604 (OECD unique identifier: SYN-IR6Ø5-5).  Resistance to the European Corn Borer and tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium (Liberty) is derived from BT11, which contains the <i>cry1Ab</i> gene from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> subsp. kurstaki, and the phosphinothricin N-acetyltransferase (PAT) encoding gene from <i>S. viridochromogenes</i>.   Corn rootworm-resistance is derived from MIR604 which contains the <i>mcry3A</i> gene from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i>.  ', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(126, 116, 'Stacked insect resistant and herbicide tolerant maize produced by conventional cross breeding of parental lines TC1507 (OECD unique identifier: DAS-Ø15Ø7-1) with DAS-59122-7 (OECD unique identifier: DAS-59122-7).  Resistance to lepidopteran insects is derived from TC1507 due the presence of the <i>cry1F</i> gene from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> var. <i>aizawai</i>.  Corn rootworm-resistance is derived from DAS-59122-7 which contains the <i>cry34Ab1</i>  and <i>cry35Ab1</i> genes from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> strain PS149B1.  Tolerance to glufosinate ammonium herbcicide is derived from TC1507 from the phosphinothricin N-acetyltransferase encoding gene from <i>Streptomyces viridochromogenes</i>.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(127, 117, 'Stacked insect resistant and herbicide tolerant maize produced by conventional cross breeding of parental lines DAS-59122-7 (OECD unique identifier: DAS-59122-7) with NK603 (OECD unique identifier: MON-ØØ6Ø3-6).  Corn rootworm-resistance is derived from DAS-59122-7 which contains the <i>cry34Ab1</i>  and <i>cry35Ab1</i> genes from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> strain PS149B1.  Tolerance to glyphosate herbcicide is derived from NK603.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(128, 118, 'Stacked insect resistant and herbicide tolerant maize produced by conventional cross breeding of parental lines DAS-59122-7 (OECD unique identifier: DAS-59122-7) and TC1507 (OECD unique identifier: DAS-Ø15Ø7-1) with NK603 (OECD unique identifier: MON-ØØ6Ø3-6).  Corn rootworm-resistance is derived from DAS-59122-7 which contains the <i>cry34Ab1</i>  and <i>cry35Ab1</i> genes from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> strain PS149B1.  Lepidopteran resistance and tolerance to glufosinate ammonium herbicide is derived from TC1507.  Tolerance to glyphosate herbcicide is derived from NK603.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(129, 130, 'Stacked insect resistant and herbicide tolerant maize produced by conventional cross breeding of parental lines BT11 (OECD unique identifier: SYN-BTØ11-1), MIR604 (OECD unique identifier: SYN-IR6Ø5-5) and GA21 (OECD unique identifier: MON-ØØØ21-9).  Resistance to the European Corn Borer and tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium (Liberty) is derived from BT11, which contains the <i>cry1Ab</i> gene from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> subsp. kurstaki, and the phosphinothricin N-acetyltransferase (PAT) encoding gene from <i>S. viridochromogenes</i>.   Corn rootworm-resistance is derived from MIR604 which contains the <i>mcry3A</i> gene from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i>.   Tolerance to glyphosate herbcicide is derived from GA21 which contains a a modified EPSPS gene from maize.<br>', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(130, 131, 'Maize line expressing a heat stable alpha-amylase gene <i>amy797E</i> for use in the dry-grind ethanol process.  The phosphomannose isomerase gene from <i>E.coli</i> was used as a selectable marker.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(131, 132, 'Maize event expressing two different insecticidal proteins from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> providing resistance to number of lepidopteran pests.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(132, 133, 'Soybean event with two herbicide tolerance genes: glyphosate N-acetlytransferase, which detoxifies glyphosate, and a modified acetolactate synthase (ALS) gene which is tolerant to ALS-inhibitng herbicides.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(133, 134, 'Stacked insect resistant and glyphosate tolerant maize derived from conventional cross-breeding of the parental lines MON89034 (OECD identifier: MON-89Ø34-3) and MON88017 (OECD identifier:MON-88Ø17-3).  Resistance to Lepiopteran insects is derived from two <i>cry</i>genes present in MON89043.  Corn rootworm resistance is derived from a single <i>cry</i> genes and glyphosate tolerance is derived from the 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) encoding gene from <i>Agrobacterium tumefaciens</i> present in MON88017.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(134, 135, 'Stacked insect resistant and herbicide tolerant maize produced by conventional cross breeding of parental lines MON89034 (OECD identifier: MON-89Ø34-3) with NK603 (OECD unique identifier: MON-ØØ6Ø3-6).  Resistance to Lepiopteran insects is derived from two <i>cry</i>genes present in MON89043.  Tolerance to glyphosate herbcicide is derived from NK603.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(135, 136, 'Maize event expressing tolerance to glyphosate herbicide, via expression of a modified bacterial glyphosate N-acetlytransferase, and ALS-inhibiting herbicides, vial expression of a modified form of the maize acetolactate synthase enzyme.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(136, 137, 'Insect-resistant maize event expressing a Vip3A protein from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> and the <i>Escherichia coli</i> PMI selectable marker', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(137, 138, 'Stacked insect resistant and herbicide tolerant maize produced by conventional cross breeding of parental lines BT11 (OECD unique identifier: SYN-BTØ11-1) and MIR162 (OECD unique identifier: SYN-IR162-4).  Resistance to the European Corn Borer and tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium (Liberty) is derived from BT11, which contains the <i>cry1Ab</i> gene from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> subsp. kurstaki, and the phosphinothricin N-acetyltransferase (PAT) encoding gene from <i>S. viridochromogenes</i>.  Resistance to other lepidopteran pests, including <i>H. zea</i>, <i>S. frugiperda</i>,<i> A. ipsilon</i>, and <i>S. albicosta</i>, is derived from MIR162, which contains the <i>vip3Aa</i> gene from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> strain AB88.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(138, 139, 'High oleic acid soybean produced by inserting additional copies of a portion of the omega-6 desaturase encoding gene, <i>gm-fad2-1</i> resulting in silencing of the endogenous omega-6 desaturase gene (<i>FAD2-1</i>).', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(139, 140, 'Insect-resistant cotton produced by inserting a full-length <i>cry1Ab</i> gene from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i>.  The APH4 encoding gene from <i>E. coli</i> was introduced as a selectable marker.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(140, 141, 'Glyphosate herbicide tolerant cotton produced by inserting a double-mutated form of the enzyme 5-enolpyruvyl shikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) from <i>Zea mays</i>.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(141, 142, 'Papaya ringspot virus (PRSV) resistant papaya produced by inserting the coat protein (CP) encoding sequences from PRSV isolate H1K with a thymidine inserted after the initiation codon to yield a frameshift. Also contains <i>nptII<i> as a selectable marker.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(142, 143, 'Insect-resistant cotton produced by inserting the <i>cry1Ac</i> gene from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> subsp. kurstaki HD-73 (B.t.k.).', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(143, 84, '<i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> Cry1Ab delta-endotoxin protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (via elements of vector pZO1502) in Event Bt11 corn (OECD Unique Identifier: SYN-BTØ11-1) x <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> Vip3Aa20 insecticidal protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (via elements of vector pNOV1300) in Event MIR162 maize (OECD Unique Identifier: SYN-IR162-4) x modified Cry3A protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (via elements of vector pZM26) in Event MIR604 corn (OECD Unique Identifier: SYN-IR6Ø4-5).', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(144, 144, 'The introduced <i>csr1-2</i> gene from <i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i> encodes an acetohydroxyacid synthase protein that confers tolerance to imidazolinone herbicides due to a point mutation that results in a single amino acid substitution in which the serine residue at position 653 is replaced by asparagine (S653N).', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(145, 145, 'Stacked glufosinate ammonium and glyphosate herbicide tolerant maize hybrid derived from conventional cross-breeding of the parental lines NK603 (OECD identifier: MON-ØØ6Ø3-6) and T25 (OECD identifier: ACS-ZM003-2).', 'NK603 X T25 (OECD identifier: MON-ØØ6Ø3-6 x ACS-ZMØØ3-2) maize is an F1 hybrid resulting from the hybridization of the glyphosate herbicide-tolerant maize inbred NK603 (MON-ØØ6Ø3-6) with the glufosinate ammonium herbicide-tolerant maize inbred T25 (ACS-ZMØØ3-2). This stacked maize hybrid is a product of traditional plant breeding, and therefore is not automatically subject to regulation in all jurisdictions as are transgenic plants resulting from recombinant DNA technologies. Certain jurisdictions may request notification in advance of the release of a stacked hybrid, or may request information to conduct an environmental and food safety assessment. <br>The stacked hybrid NK603 X T25 expresses two novel proteins: CP4 EPSPS which confers tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, and phosphinothricin N-acetyltransferase (PAT) which confers tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium. The CP4 EPSPS protein is produced by the <i>cp4 epsps</i> gene from NK603, and the PAT protein by the <i>pat</i> gene from T25. The novel traits of each parent line have been combined, through traditional plant breeding, to produce this new hybrid. For a full description of each parent line please refer to the individual product descriptions in the crop database for <a href="dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=NK603&frmat=LONG"><b>NK603</b></a> and <a href="dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=T14%2C+T25&frmat=LONG"><b>T25</b></a>.<br>The inserted genes and their gene products have a history of safe use, and have undergone review and approval by several regulatory agencies. No interactions among the gene products or negative synergistic effects are expected in the stacked hybrid. ', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(146, 146, 'Altered starch composition, increased amylopectin to amylose ratio, through the introduction of a fragment of the potato granule-bound starch synthase encoding gene (<i>gbss</i>) in the anti-sense orientation.  The <i>nptII</i> gene was also introduced as a selectable marker for identifying transformed plants.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(147, 147, 'MON 87460 was developed to provide reduced yield loss under water-limited conditions compared to conventional maize.  Efficacy in MON 87460 is derived by expression of the inserted <I>Bacillus subtilis</I> cold shock protein B (CspB).', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(148, 148, 'Resistance to lepidopteran pests of soybean including velvetbean caterpillar (<I>Anticarsia gemmatalis</I>) and soybean looper (<I>Pseudoplusia includens</I>).', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(149, 149, 'Glyphosate herbicide tolerance through expression of the EPSPS encoding gene from <i>A. tumefaciens</i> strain CP4, and resistance to lepidopteran pests of soybean including velvetbean caterpillar (<I>Anticarsia gemmatalis</I>) and soybean looper (<I>Pseudoplusia includens</I>) via expression of the Cry1Ac encoding gene from <i>B. thuringiensis</i>.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(150, 150, 'Resistance to coleopteran pests, particularly corn rootworm pests (<i>Diabrotica</i> spp.) and several lepidopteran pests of corn, including European corn borer (ECB, <i>Ostrinia nubilalis</i>), corn earworm (CEW, <i>Helicoverpa zea</i>), fall army worm (FAW, <i>Spodoptera frugiperda</i>), and black cutworm (BCW, <i>Agrotis ipsilon</i>); tolerance to glyphosate and glufosinate-ammonium containing herbicides.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(151, 151, 'Stacked insect resistant and herbicide tolerant maize produced by conventional cross breeding of parental lines TC1507 with MON 810.  Resistance to lepidopteran insects is conferred by expression of the <i>cry1F</i> and <i>cry1Ab</i> geners derived from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i>.  Tolerance to glufosinate ammonium herbcicide is derived from TC1507 from the phosphinothricin <i>N</i>-acetyltransferase encoding gene from <i>Streptomyces viridochromogenes</i>.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(152, 152, 'Stacked insect resistant and herbicide tolerant maize produced by conventional cross breeding of parental lines TC1507, MON 810, and NK603.  Resistance to lepidopteran insects is conferred by expression of the <i>cry1F</i> and <i>cry1Ab</i> geners derived from <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i>.  Tolerance to glufosinate ammonium herbcicide is derived from TC1507 from the phosphinothricin <i>N</i>-acetyltransferase encoding gene from <i>Streptomyces viridochromogenes</i>.  Tolerance to glyphosate herbicide is derived from event NK603, which expresses the CP4 EPSPS encoding gene from <i>Agrobacterium tumefaciens</i>.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(153, 153, 'Stacked insect resistant and herbicide tolerant corn hybrid derived from conventional cross-breeding of the parental lines BT11, GA21, and MIR162.  The trait of insect resistance conferred by expression of the Cry1Ab and Vip3Aa20 proteins, derived from BT11 and MIR162, respectively.  Tolerance to glufosinate herbicides via expression of the PAT enzyme, from BT11, and tolerance to glyphosate herbicides via expression of the modified EPSPS enzyme from event GA21.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL),
(166, 166, NULL, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;">Maize line 4114 is a molecular stack (single event) that expresses the same insect-resistance and herbicide-tolerance traits as present in currently commercialized hybrids containing 1507 x 59122, which are marketed under the trade name Herculex&reg; XTRA. Just like Herculex&reg; XTRA hybrids, 4114 maize expresses the Cry1F protein, conferring resistance to certain lepidopteran insect pests (e.g., European corn borer), the Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteins, which together form an active binary insecticidal protein conferring resistance to corn rootworm, and the PAT enzyme, which inactivates glufosinate herbicide via acetylation.</span></p><br>', NULL, NULL, NULL, '2013-08-23 00:19:19');

-- --------------------------------------------------------

INSERT INTO `gmcropdatabase_events_documents` (`id`, `eventId`, `type`, `description`, `content`, `created`, `updated`) VALUES
(1, 9, 'Figure', 'Plasmid used to construct insect-protected corn line MON 810 (Sanders et al. 1998).', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/MON810_01.gif', NULL, '2013-09-02 14:27:02'),
(2, 20, 'Figure', 'Plasmid used in Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of Russet Burbank potato plants (Lavrik et al. 1995).', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/BT6_01.gif', NULL, NULL),
(3, 1, 'Figure', 'Compositional analysis of GA21 and control maize grain', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/ga21_01.gif', NULL, NULL),
(4, 1, 'Figure', 'Plasmid map of pDPG434', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/ga21_02.gif', NULL, NULL),
(5, 4, 'Figure', 'T-DNA region transferred into Oxy-235', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/oxy235-001.gif', NULL, NULL),
(6, 4, 'Figure', 'Proximate analysis of seed', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/oxy235-002.gif', NULL, NULL),
(7, 4, 'Figure', 'Fatty acid analysis of seed', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/oxy235-003.gif', NULL, NULL),
(8, 4, 'Figure', 'Total sterol and tocopherol levels', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/oxy235-004.gif', NULL, NULL),
(9, 4, 'Figure', 'Oxynil degradation by nitrilase', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/oxy235-005.gif', NULL, NULL),
(10, 6, 'Figure', 'Proximate analysis of T25 grain', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/t25_01.gif', NULL, NULL),
(11, 9, 'Figure', 'Plasmid construct used in transformation', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/MON810_01.gif', NULL, '2013-09-02 14:27:02'),
(12, 9, 'Figure', 'Fatty acid analysis', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/mon810_02.gif', NULL, '2013-09-02 14:27:02'),
(13, 9, 'Figure', 'Proximate analysis of forage', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/mon810_03.gif', NULL, '2013-09-02 14:27:02'),
(14, 9, 'Figure', 'Concentration of Cry1Ab protein in various tissues', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/mon810_04.gif', NULL, '2013-09-02 14:27:02'),
(15, 10, 'Figure', 'Gene organization within one of the insertion sites in ATBT04-36', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/atbt04_01.gif', NULL, NULL),
(16, 10, 'Figure', 'Compositional data from Atlantic potato lines ATBT04-06, ATBT04-31, and ATBT04-36', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/atbt04_02.gif', NULL, NULL),
(17, 10, 'Figure', 'Glycoalkaloid content in NewLeaf® potato lines', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/atbt04_03.gif', NULL, NULL),
(18, 10, 'Figure', 'Plasmid map of PV-STBT02', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/atbt04_04.gif', NULL, NULL),
(19, 14, 'Figure', 'Plasmid map of PV-GHBK04', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/mon531-001.gif', NULL, NULL),
(20, 20, 'Figure', 'Gene organization of the single insertion site in lines BT6, -12, -17, and -23', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/bt6_01.gif', NULL, NULL),
(21, 21, 'Figure', 'Plasmid map of PV-GMGT04 used to produce event 40-3-2', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/gts_40-3-2_01.gif', NULL, NULL),
(22, 21, 'Figure', 'Fatty acid analysis', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/gts40-3-2_01.gif', NULL, NULL),
(23, 21, 'Figure', 'Amino acid composition', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/gts40-3-2_02.gif', NULL, NULL),
(24, 21, 'Figure', 'Proximate analysis', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/gts40-3-2_03.gif', NULL, NULL),
(25, 21, 'Figure', 'Digestability of CP4 EPSPS protein', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/gts40-3-2_04.gif', NULL, NULL),
(26, 21, 'Figure', 'Concentrations of CP4 EPSPS protein in leaf and seed samples', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/gts40-3-2_05.gif', NULL, NULL),
(27, 23, 'Figure', 'Plasmid map of PV-BNGT04', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/gt73_01.gif', NULL, NULL),
(28, 29, 'Figure', 'Map of the T-DNA region of plasmid pBrx75.', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/bxn_01.gif', NULL, NULL),
(29, 41, 'Figure', 'Biosynthetic pathway for long-chain fatty acids', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/g94-1_01.gif', NULL, NULL),
(30, 41, 'Figure', 'Plasmid pBS43', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/g94-1_02.gif', NULL, NULL),
(31, 41, 'Figure', 'Plasmid pML102', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/g94-1_03.gif', NULL, NULL),
(32, 41, 'Figure', 'Gene organization at locus A', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/g94-1_04.gif', NULL, NULL),
(33, 41, 'Figure', 'Fatty acid analysis of high oleic acid soybeans', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/g94-1_05.gif', NULL, NULL),
(34, 46, 'Figure', 'Organization of the inserted sequences in GTSB77', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/gtsb77_01.gif', NULL, NULL),
(35, 46, 'Figure', 'Proximate analysis of root/brei tissu', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/gtsb77_02.gif', NULL, NULL),
(36, 46, 'Figure', 'Analysis of other quality components in root/brei tissue', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/gtsb77_03.gif', NULL, NULL),
(37, 46, 'Figure', 'Saponin levels in the root/brei tissue from GTSB77', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/gtsb77_04.gif', NULL, NULL),
(38, 52, 'Figure', 'Plasmid map of PV-GHGT07', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/mon1445_01.gif', NULL, NULL),
(39, 52, 'Figure', 'Levels of expression of CP4 EPSPS, NPTII and AAD in cotton leaf tissue', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/mon1445_02.gif', NULL, NULL),
(40, 52, 'Figure', 'Levels of expression of CP4 EPSPS, NPTII and AAD in line 1445 cottonseed', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/mon1445_03.gif', NULL, NULL),
(41, 52, 'Figure', 'Summary of proximate analysis of cottonseed from line 1445', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/mon1445_04.gif', NULL, NULL),
(42, 52, 'Figure', 'Fatty acid analysis of cottonseed from line 1445', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/mon1445_05.gif', NULL, NULL),
(43, 52, 'Figure', 'Fatty acid profile and gossypol content of refined oil', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/mon1445_06.gif', NULL, NULL),
(44, 53, 'Figure', 'Gene organization within the two insertion sites in RBMT21-129', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/rbmt21-129_01.gif', NULL, NULL),
(45, 53, 'Figure', 'Gene organization within the two insertion sites in RBMT21-350', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/rbmt21-129_02.gif', NULL, NULL),
(46, 53, 'Figure', 'Gene organization within the three insertion sites in RBMT22-082', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/rbmt21-129_03.gif', NULL, NULL),
(47, 53, 'Figure', 'Symptoms of PLRV infection', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/rbmt21-129_04.gif', NULL, NULL),
(48, 54, 'Figure', 'Gene organization within the T-DNA region of plasmid PV-STMT15', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/semt15-02_01.gif', NULL, NULL),
(49, 54, 'Figure', 'Proximate analysis of RBMT15-101 tubers', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/semt15-02_02.gif', NULL, NULL),
(50, 54, 'Figure', 'Symtoms of PVY infection', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/semt15-02_03.gif', NULL, NULL),
(51, 54, 'Figure', 'Plasmid map of PV-STMT15', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/rbmt15-001.gif', NULL, NULL),
(52, 62, 'Figure', 'Biosynthesis of ethylene', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/66_01.gif', NULL, NULL),
(53, 63, 'Figure', 'Biochemical pathway to anthocyanins', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/4-11-15-16_01.gif', NULL, NULL),
(54, 64, 'Figure', 'Biochemical pathway to anthocyanins', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/4-11-15-16_01.gif', NULL, NULL),
(55, 74, 'Figure', 'Organization of genetic elements on introduced DNA', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/nk603_01.gif', NULL, '2013-09-02 17:06:58'),
(56, 74, 'Figure', 'Concentrations of CP4 EPSPS protein in NK603 tissues estimated by DAS-ELISA', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/nk603_02.gif', NULL, '2013-09-02 17:06:58'),
(57, 74, 'Figure', 'Proximate and fibre analysis from U.S. field trials', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/nk603_03.gif', NULL, '2013-09-02 17:06:58'),
(58, 74, 'Figure', 'Fatty acid analysis of NK603 grain from U.S. field trials', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/nk603_04.gif', NULL, '2013-09-02 17:06:58'),
(59, 74, 'Figure', 'Mineral analysis of NK603 grain from U.S. field trials', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/nk603_05.gif', NULL, '2013-09-02 17:06:58'),
(60, 74, 'Figure', 'Antinutrients and vitamin E from NK603 grain', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/nk603_06.gif', NULL, '2013-09-02 17:06:58'),
(61, 74, 'Figure', 'Plasmid map of PV-ZMGT32', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/nk603_07.gif', NULL, '2013-09-02 17:06:58'),
(62, 136, 'Figure', 'Plasmid map of PHP24279', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/event98140_1.png', NULL, NULL),
(63, 141, 'Figure', 'Plasmid map of pTEM2', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/ptem2.png', NULL, NULL),
(64, 141, 'Figure', 'Genetic elements of vector p-TEM2', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/ghb614_2.png', NULL, NULL),
(65, 1, 'Document', 'How glyphosate works', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glyphosate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(66, 1, 'Document', 'Product summary prepared by Monsanto', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/02-269-006.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(67, 1, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(68, 2, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of bread wheat', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-006.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(69, 3, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(70, 4, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of canola', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-011.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(71, 5, 'Document', 'How glyphosate works', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glyphosate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(72, 5, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(73, 6, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(74, 6, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(75, 7, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, '2013-09-02 14:23:30'),
(76, 7, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, '2013-09-02 14:23:30'),
(77, 9, 'Document', 'Product summary prepared by Monsanto', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/02-269-010.pdf', NULL, '2013-09-02 14:27:02'),
(78, 9, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, '2013-09-02 14:27:02'),
(79, 10, 'Document', 'Product summary prepared by Monsanto', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/02-269-003.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(80, 10, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of potato', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-008.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(81, 11, 'Document', 'How glyphosate works', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glyphosate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(82, 12, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, '2013-05-10 15:06:17'),
(83, 13, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(84, 13, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(85, 14, 'Document', 'Product summary prepared by Monsanto', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/mon_531.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(86, 14, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of cotton', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(87, 15, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(88, 16, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(89, 16, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(90, 17, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(91, 18, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of canola', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-011.pdf', NULL, '2013-07-17 13:12:02'),
(92, 19, 'Document', 'How glyphosate works', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glyphosate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(93, 19, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of canola', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-011.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(94, 20, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of potato', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-008.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(95, 21, 'Document', 'Updated Molecular Characterization (Monsanto)', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/gts40-3-2-update.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(96, 21, 'Document', 'Molecular Characterization Data (Monsanto)', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/gts40-3-2-dossier.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(97, 21, 'Document', 'How glyphosate works', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glyphosate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(98, 21, 'Document', 'Product summary prepared by Monsanto', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/02-269-009.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(99, 21, 'Document', 'Monsanto comments on DNA rearrangements at the 3'' end of the functional insert', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/mon_081601.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(100, 21, 'Document', 'Consensus document on compositional considerations for new varieties of soybean.', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/03-290-001.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(101, 22, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(102, 22, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of canola', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-011.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(103, 23, 'Document', 'How glyphosate works', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glyphosate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(104, 23, 'Document', 'Product summary prepared by Monsanto', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/02-269-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(105, 23, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of canola', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-011.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(106, 24, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of canola', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-011.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(107, 25, 'Document', 'Preliminary report on the ecological impact of Bt corn pollen on the Monarch butterfly in Ontario (M. Sears)', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/searsreport.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(108, 25, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(109, 26, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(110, 26, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of canola', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-011.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(111, 27, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(112, 27, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of canola', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-011.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(113, 28, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(114, 28, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(115, 29, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of cotton', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(116, 32, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(117, 32, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of canola', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-011.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(118, 33, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(119, 33, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of canola', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-011.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(120, 34, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of cotton', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(121, 35, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of cotton', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(122, 36, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(123, 36, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of canola', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-011.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(124, 37, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(125, 37, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of canola', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-011.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(126, 39, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(127, 39, 'Document', 'Consensus document on compositional considerations for new varieties of soybean.', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/03-290-001.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(128, 40, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(129, 40, 'Document', 'Consensus document on compositional considerations for new varieties of soybean.', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/03-290-001.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(130, 41, 'Document', 'Consensus document on compositional considerations for new varieties of soybean', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/03-290-001.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(131, 42, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(132, 42, 'Document', 'Consensus document on compositional considerations for new varieties of soybean.', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/03-290-001.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(133, 45, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(134, 45, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of sugarbeet', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-009.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(135, 45, 'Document', 'OECD consensus document on the biology of sugarbeet', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-291-006.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(136, 46, 'Document', 'How glyphosate works', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glyphosate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(137, 46, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of sugarbeet', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-009.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(138, 46, 'Document', 'OECD consensus document on the biology of sugarbeet', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-291-006.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(139, 47, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(140, 48, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(141, 48, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(142, 49, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(143, 49, 'Document', 'Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on suspected cases of allergic reaction to Cry9C protein', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/01-184-a.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(144, 49, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(145, 50, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(146, 50, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(147, 51, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(148, 52, 'Document', 'How glyphosate works', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glyphosate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(149, 52, 'Document', 'Product summary prepared by Monsanto', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/02-269-008.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(150, 52, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of cotton', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(151, 53, 'Document', 'Product summary prepared by Monsanto', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/02-269-002.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(152, 53, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of potato', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-008.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(153, 54, 'Document', 'Product summary prepared by Monsanto', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/02-269-004.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(154, 54, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of potato', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-008.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(155, 55, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(156, 55, 'Document', 'The biology and ecology of rice in Australia', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-003.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(157, 55, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of rice', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-004.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(158, 60, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(159, 60, 'Document', 'Consensus document on compositional considerations for new varieties of soybean.', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/03-290-001.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(160, 65, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(161, 65, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of canola', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-011.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(162, 66, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(163, 66, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(164, 68, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of canola', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-011.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(165, 69, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of canola', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-011.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(166, 71, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(167, 72, 'Document', 'How glyphosate works', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glyphosate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(168, 72, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(169, 73, 'Document', 'Consensus document on compositional considerations for new soybean varieties.', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/03-290-001.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(170, 74, 'Document', 'How glyphosate works', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glyphosate.htm', NULL, '2013-09-02 17:06:58'),
(171, 74, 'Document', 'Product summary prepared by Monsanto', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/02-269-007.pdf', NULL, '2013-09-02 17:06:58'),
(172, 74, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, '2013-09-02 17:06:58'),
(173, 75, 'Document', 'Product summary prepared by Monsanto', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/03-290-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(174, 75, 'Document', '90-Day subchronic rat study', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-184-001.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(175, 75, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(176, 76, 'Document', 'The biology and ecology of rice in Australia', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-003.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(177, 76, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of rice', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-004.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(178, 77, 'Document', 'Product summary prepared by Monsanto', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/03-290-006.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(179, 77, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of cotton', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-223-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(180, 78, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(181, 79, 'Document', 'How glyphosate works', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glyphosate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(182, 79, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of bread wheat', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-006.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(183, 82, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(184, 82, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of cotton', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(185, 84, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(186, 84, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(187, 85, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(188, 86, 'Document', 'OECD consensus document on the biology of sunflower', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-012.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(189, 86, 'Document', 'CFIA biology document for sunflower', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-209-009.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(190, 87, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of bread wheat', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-006.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(191, 88, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of bread wheat', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-006.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(192, 89, 'Document', 'CFIA biology document for lentil', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-209-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(193, 90, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of bread wheat', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-006.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(194, 91, 'Document', 'The biology and ecology of rice in Australia', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-003.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(195, 91, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of rice', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-004.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(196, 92, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of cotton', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(197, 93, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of cotton', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(198, 94, 'Document', 'How glyphosate works', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glyphosate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(199, 94, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of sugarbeet', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-009.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(200, 94, 'Document', 'OECD consensus document on the biology of sugarbeet', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-291-006.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(201, 95, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(202, 96, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(203, 97, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of cotton', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(204, 97, 'Document', 'The biology and ecology of cotton in Australia', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/06-059-003.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(205, 100, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(206, 101, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(207, 102, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(208, 103, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(209, 104, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(210, 105, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(211, 109, 'Document', 'Key feed nutrients, anti-nutrients, and secondary plant metabolites of alfalfa and other temperate forage legumes', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-291-004.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(212, 109, 'Document', 'CFIA biology document for alfalfa', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-291-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(213, 110, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of cotton', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(214, 111, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(215, 112, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(216, 113, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(217, 114, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(218, 115, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of cotton', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(219, 116, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(220, 117, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(221, 118, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(222, 120, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of cotton', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(223, 121, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(224, 122, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of bread wheat', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-006.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(225, 123, 'Document', 'The biology and ecology of rice in Australia', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-003.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(226, 123, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of rice', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-004.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(227, 124, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(228, 124, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of rice', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-004.pdf', NULL, '2013-07-17 14:16:50'),
(229, 124, 'Document', 'The biology and ecology of rice in Australia', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-003.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(230, 125, 'Document', 'How Glyphosate works', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glyphosate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(231, 125, 'Document', 'Consensus document on compositional considerations for new varieties of soybean.', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/03-290-001.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(232, 126, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of bread wheat', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-006.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(233, 127, 'Document', 'Consensus document on the biology of <i>Prunus</i> sp. (stone fruits)', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/07-313-001.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(234, 128, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(235, 129, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(236, 130, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(237, 131, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(238, 132, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(239, 133, 'Document', 'How Glyphosate works', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glyphosate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(240, 133, 'Document', 'Consensus document on compositional considerations for new varieties of soybean.', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/03-290-001.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(241, 134, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pd', NULL, NULL),
(242, 134, 'Document', 'How Glyphosate works', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glyphosate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(243, 135, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pd', NULL, NULL),
(244, 135, 'Document', 'How Glyphosate works', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glyphosate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(245, 136, 'Document', 'How Glyphosate works', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glyphosate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(246, 136, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(247, 137, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(248, 138, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(249, 139, 'Document', 'Consensus document on compositional considerations for new varieties of soybean.', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/03-290-001.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(250, 140, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of cotton', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(251, 141, 'Document', 'How Glyphosate works', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glyphosate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(252, 141, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of cotton', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(253, 143, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of cotton', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(254, 145, 'Document', 'How Glyphosate works', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glyphosate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(255, 145, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(256, 146, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of potato', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-008.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(257, 147, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(258, 148, 'Document', 'Consensus document on compositional considerations for new varieties of soybean.', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/03-290-001.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(259, 149, 'Document', 'Consensus document on compositional considerations for new varieties of soybean.', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/03-290-001.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(260, 150, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(261, 150, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(262, 150, 'Document', 'How Glyphosate works', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glyphosate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(263, 151, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(264, 151, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(265, 152, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(266, 152, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(267, 152, 'Document', 'How Glyphosate works', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glyphosate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(268, 153, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of maize', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(269, 153, 'Document', 'How Glyphosate works', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glyphosate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(270, 153, 'Document', 'Glufosinate facts', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/htmfiles/glufosinate.htm', NULL, NULL),
(271, 1, 'Detection', 'EU CRL validated method', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/06-160-001.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(272, 1, 'Detection', 'CRL validation report', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/06-160-002.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(273, 8, 'Detection', 'CRL Verification Report: CDC Triffid Event FP967', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/10-037-001.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(274, 16, 'Detection', 'EU CRL validated detection method', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/06-159-001.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(275, 16, 'Detection', 'CRL validation report', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/06-159-002.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(276, 21, 'Detection', 'CRL Validation Report', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/08-361-009.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(277, 21, 'Detection', 'CRL Validated Method', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/08-361-010.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(278, 21, 'Detection', 'CRL DNA Extraction', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/08-361-011.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(279, 28, 'Detection', 'EU CRL validated method', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/06-160-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(280, 28, 'Detection', 'CRL Validation Report', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/08-365-011.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(281, 28, 'Detection', 'CRL DNA Extraction', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/08-365-012.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(282, 40, 'Detection', 'CRL Validated Method', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/09-052-013.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(283, 40, 'Detection', 'CRL Validation Report', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/09-052-014.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(284, 52, 'Detection', 'CRL Validation Report', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/08-361-006.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(285, 52, 'Detection', 'CRL Validated Method', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/08-361-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(286, 52, 'Detection', 'CRL DNA Extraction', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/08-361-008.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(287, 74, 'Detection', 'EU CRL validated method', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/06-159-003.pdf', NULL, '2013-09-02 17:06:58'),
(288, 74, 'Detection', 'CRL validation report', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/06-159-004.pdf', NULL, '2013-09-02 17:06:58'),
(289, 75, 'Detection', 'EU CRL validated method', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/06-160-003.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(290, 75, 'Detection', 'CRL validation report', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/06-160-004.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(291, 82, 'Detection', 'CRL Validation Report', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/08-361-003.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(292, 82, 'Detection', 'EU CRL Validated Method', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/08-361-004.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(293, 82, 'Detection', 'EU CRL DNA Extraction', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/08-361-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(294, 113, 'Detection', 'CRL Validated Method', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/09-207-003.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(295, 113, 'Detection', 'CRL Validation Report', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/09-207-004.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(296, 121, 'Detection', 'CRL Validated Method (BT11)', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/09-052-015.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(297, 121, 'Detection', 'CRL Validated Method (GA21)', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/09-052-016.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(298, 131, 'Detection', 'CRL Validation Report', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/08-362-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(299, 131, 'Detection', 'CRL Validated Method', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/08-362-006.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(300, 131, 'Detection', 'CRL DNA Extraction', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/08-362-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(301, 132, 'Detection', 'CRL Validation Report', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/08-365-001.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(302, 132, 'Detection', 'CRL Validated Method', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/08-365-002.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(303, 132, 'Detection', 'CRL DNA Extraction', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/08-365-003.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(304, 133, 'Detection', 'CRL Validated Method', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/09-052-009.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(305, 133, 'Detection', 'CRL Validation Report', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/09-052-010.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(306, 133, 'Detection', 'CRL DNA Extraction', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/09-052-011.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(307, 139, 'Detection', 'CRL Validated Method', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/09-052-006.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(308, 139, 'Detection', 'CRL Validation Report', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/09-052-007.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(309, 139, 'Detection', 'CRL DNA Extraction', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/09-052-008.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(310, 141, 'Detection', 'CRL Validated Method', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/09-054-002.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(311, 141, 'Detection', 'CRL Validation Report', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/09-054-003.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(312, 141, 'Detection', 'CRL DNA Extraction', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/09-054-004.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(313, 151, 'Detection', 'EU CRL validated method (TC1507)', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/06-160-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(314, 152, 'Detection', 'EU CRL validated method (TC1507)', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/06-160-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(315, 152, 'Detection', 'EU CRL validated method (NK603)', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/06-159-003.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(316, 153, 'Detection', 'CRL Validated Method (BT11)', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/09-052-015.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(317, 153, 'Detection', 'EU CRL validated method (GA21)', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/06-160-001.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(318, 1, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(319, 3, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(320, 5, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(321, 6, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(322, 7, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, '2013-09-02 14:23:30'),
(323, 9, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, '2013-09-02 14:27:02'),
(324, 10, 'Biological', 'Potato biology facts', 'STUB', NULL, NULL),
(325, 12, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, '2013-05-10 15:06:17'),
(326, 13, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(327, 14, 'Biological', 'Cotton biology facts', 'GOSH', NULL, NULL),
(328, 15, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(329, 16, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(330, 17, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(331, 20, 'Biological', 'Potato biology facts', 'STUB', NULL, NULL),
(332, 21, 'Biological', 'Soybean biology document', 'SOYB', NULL, NULL),
(333, 25, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(334, 28, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(335, 29, 'Biological', 'Cotton biology facts', 'GOSH', NULL, NULL),
(336, 31, 'Biological', 'Papaya biology facts', 'PAPY', NULL, NULL),
(337, 34, 'Biological', 'Cotton biology facts', 'GOSH', NULL, NULL),
(338, 35, 'Biological', 'Cotton biology facts', 'GOSH', NULL, NULL),
(339, 39, 'Biological', 'Soybean biology document', 'SOYB', NULL, NULL),
(340, 40, 'Biological', 'Soybean biology document', 'SOYB', NULL, NULL),
(341, 41, 'Biological', 'Soybean biology document', 'SOYB', NULL, NULL),
(342, 42, 'Biological', 'Soybean biology document', 'SOYB', NULL, NULL),
(343, 43, 'Biological', 'Tomato biology facts', 'TOM', NULL, '2013-08-16 11:33:49'),
(425, 166, 'Biological', 'Biology Info', 'ZMAYS', '2013-08-16 21:01:43', '2013-08-23 00:19:19'),
(345, 48, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(346, 49, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(347, 50, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(348, 51, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(349, 52, 'Biological', 'Cotton biology facts', 'GOSH', NULL, NULL),
(350, 53, 'Biological', 'Potato biology facts', 'STUB', NULL, NULL),
(351, 54, 'Biological', 'Potato biology facts', 'STUB', NULL, NULL),
(352, 56, 'Biological', 'Tomato biology facts', 'TOM', NULL, NULL),
(353, 57, 'Biological', 'Tomato  biology  facts', 'TOM', NULL, '2013-08-15 13:48:15'),
(354, 58, 'Biological', 'Tomato biology facts', 'TOM', NULL, NULL),
(355, 59, 'Biological', 'Tomato biology facts', 'TOM', NULL, NULL),
(356, 60, 'Biological', 'Soybean biology document', 'SOYB', NULL, NULL),
(357, 61, 'Biological', 'Tomato biology facts', 'TOM', NULL, NULL),
(358, 66, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(359, 71, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(360, 72, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(361, 73, 'Biological', 'Soybean biology document', 'SOYB', NULL, NULL),
(362, 74, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, '2013-09-02 17:06:58'),
(363, 77, 'Biological', 'Cotton biology facts', 'GOSH', NULL, NULL),
(364, 78, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(365, 82, 'Biological', 'Cotton biology facts', 'GOSH', NULL, NULL),
(366, 84, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(367, 85, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(368, 92, 'Biological', 'Cotton biology facts', 'GOSH', NULL, NULL),
(369, 93, 'Biological', 'Cotton biology facts', 'GOSH', NULL, NULL),
(370, 95, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(371, 96, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(372, 97, 'Biological', 'Cotton biology facts', 'GOSH', NULL, NULL),
(373, 110, 'Biological', 'Cotton biology facts', 'GOSH', NULL, NULL),
(374, 111, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(375, 112, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(376, 113, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(377, 114, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(378, 115, 'Biological', 'Cotton biology facts', 'GOSH', NULL, NULL),
(379, 116, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(380, 117, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(381, 118, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(382, 120, 'Biological', 'Cotton biology facts', 'GOSH', NULL, NULL),
(383, 121, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(384, 125, 'Biological', 'Soybean Biology Document', 'SOYB', NULL, NULL),
(385, 128, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(386, 129, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(387, 130, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(388, 131, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(389, 132, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL);
INSERT INTO `gmcropdatabase_events_documents` (`id`, `eventId`, `type`, `description`, `content`, `created`, `updated`) VALUES
(390, 133, 'Biological', 'Soybean Biology Document', 'SOYB', NULL, NULL),
(391, 134, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(392, 135, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(393, 136, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(394, 137, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(395, 138, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(396, 139, 'Biological', 'Soybean Biology Document', 'SOYB', NULL, NULL),
(397, 140, 'Biological', 'Cotton biology facts', 'GOSH', NULL, NULL),
(398, 141, 'Biological', 'Cotton biology facts', 'GOSH', NULL, NULL),
(399, 142, 'Biological', 'Papaya biology facts', 'PAPY', NULL, NULL),
(400, 143, 'Biological', 'Cotton biology facts', 'GOSH', NULL, NULL),
(401, 144, 'Biological', 'Soybean Biology Document', 'SOYB', NULL, NULL),
(402, 145, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(403, 146, 'Biological', 'Potato biology facts', 'STUB', NULL, NULL),
(404, 147, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(405, 148, 'Biological', 'Soybean biology document', 'SOYB', NULL, NULL),
(406, 149, 'Biological', 'Soybean biology document', 'SOYB', NULL, NULL),
(407, 150, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(408, 151, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(409, 152, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(410, 153, 'Biological', 'Maize biology document', 'ZMAYS', NULL, NULL),
(426, 99, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of cotton', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-005.pdf', NULL, NULL),
(427, 99, 'Biological', 'Cotton biology facts', 'GOSH', NULL, NULL),
(428, 98, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of cotton', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-005.pdf', '2013-08-29 20:13:07', '2013-08-30 15:20:01'),
(429, 98, 'Biological', 'Cotton biology facts', 'GOSH', '2013-08-29 20:13:07', '2013-08-30 15:20:01'),
(430, 107, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of cotton', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-005.pdf', '2013-08-30 16:46:54', '2013-08-30 16:46:54'),
(431, 107, 'Biological', 'Cotton biology facts', 'GOSH', '2013-08-30 16:46:54', '2013-08-30 16:46:54'),
(432, 108, 'Document', ' Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of cotton', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-005.pdf', '2013-09-02 13:10:03', '2013-09-02 13:13:42'),
(433, 108, 'Biological', 'Cotton biology facts', 'GOSH', '2013-09-02 13:10:03', '2013-09-02 13:13:42'),
(434, 108, 'Detection', 'CRL Validated Method', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/articles/09-052-012.pdf', '2013-09-02 13:13:42', '2013-09-02 13:13:42'),
(435, 119, 'Document', 'Key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients of cotton', '/files/default/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-233-005.pdf', '2013-09-02 13:41:41', '2013-09-02 13:41:41'),
(436, 119, 'Biological', 'Cotton biology facts', 'GOSH', '2013-09-02 13:41:41', '2013-09-02 13:41:41');

-- --------------------------------------------------------

INSERT INTO `gmcropdatabase_events_esafeties` (`id`, `eventId`, `description`, `created`, `updated`) VALUES
(1, 9, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Since pollen production and viability were unchanged by the genetic modification resulting in MON810, pollen dispersal by wind and outcropping frequency should be no different than for other maize varieties. Gene exchange between MON810 maize and other cultivated maize varieties will be similar to that which occurs naturally between cultivated maize varieties at the present time. In Canada and the United States, where there are no plant species closely-related to maize in the wild, the risk of gene flow to other species appears remote. Maize (<i>Zea mays</i> ssp. mays) freely hybridizes with annual teosinte (<i>Zea mays</i> ssp. mexicana) when in close proximity. These wild maize relatives are native to Central America and are not present in Canada and the United States, except for special plantings. Tripsacum, another genus related to Zea, contains sixteen species, of which twelve are native to Mexico and Guatemala. <i>Tripsacum floridanum</i> (Florida gamagrass) is native to the southern tip of Florida. Outcrossing with Tripsacum species is not known to occur in the wild and it is only with extreme difficulty that maize can be crossed with Tripsacum.</p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to MON810, other than that conferred by resistance to European Corn Borer. Resistance to ECB will not, in itself, render maize weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics were modified. Cultivated maize is unlikely to establish in non-cropped habitats and there have been no reports of maize surviving as a weed. <i>Zea mays</i> is not invasive and is a weak competitor with very limited seed dispersal.</p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The history of use and literature suggest that the bacterial <i>Bt</i> protein is not toxic to humans, other vertebrates, and beneficial insects. The insecticidally active core of the <i>Bt</i> protein expressed in MON810 maize (Cry1Ab) was shown to be equivalent to the original microbial protein. This protein is active only against specific lepidopteran insects and no lepidopteran species are listed as threatened or endangered species in Canada or the United States. Maize inbreds and hybrids expressing the Cry1Ab protein were compared to their non-transformed counterpart for relative abundance of beneficial arthropods. Field studies demonstrated that Cry1Ab had neither a direct nor an indirect effect on the beneficial arthropod populations. Specific feeding trials were also carried out with a number of non-target species, including honey bee larvae and adults, green lacewing, parasitic hymenopterans, ladybird beetles, daphnia (aquatic invertebrates), earthworm, and collembola (soil dwelling invertebrates). In all cases there were no observable adverse effects. In summary, it was determined that when compared with currently commercialized maize varieties, MON810 maize did not present an increased risk to or impact on interacting organisms, including humans, with the exception of specific lepidopteran insect species.</p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;">MON810 has no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of maize production. Since the risk of outcrossing with wild relatives in North America is remote, it was determined that risk of transferring genetic traits from MON810 maize to species in unmanaged environments was insignificant.</p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Other Considerations</b></p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In order to prolong the effectiveness of plant-expressed <i>Bt</i> toxins, and the microbial spray formulations of these same toxins, regulatory authorities in Canada and United States have required developers to implement specific Insect Resistant Management (IRM) Programs. These programs are mandatory for all transgenic <i>Bt</i>-expressing plants, including MON810 maize, and require that growers plant a certain percentage of their acreage to non-transgenic varieties in order to reduce the potential for selecting <i>Bt</i>-resistant insect populations. Details on the specific design and requirements of individual IRM programs are published by the relevant regulatory authority.</p>\r\n', NULL, '2013-09-02 14:27:02'),
(2, 25, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Field testing of Event 176 demonstrated that there were no significant differences observed between hybrids derived using original elite lines and Event 176 for the agronomic traits of yield, moisture at harvest, root lodging rating, ear height, plant height, heat units to silking or pollen shed. Other than resistance to ECB and tolerance to glufosinate ammonium herbicide, the disease, pest and other agronomic characteristics of Event 176 maize were comparable to non-transgenic lines of maize did not demonstrate any altered plant pest potential.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing </b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Since pollen production and viability were unchanged by the genetic modification resulting in Event 176, pollen dispersal by wind and outcrossing frequency should be no different than for other maize varieties. Gene exchange between Event 176 and other cultivated maize varieties will be similar to that which occurs naturally between cultivated maize varieties at the present time. In North America, where there are few plant species closely-related to maize in the wild, the risk of gene flow to other species appears remote. Cultivated maize, or maize, Zea mays L. subsp. mays, is sexually compatible with other members of the genus Zea, and to a much lesser degree with members of the genus Tripsacum.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Wild diploid and tetraploid members of Zea collectively referred to as teosinte are normally confined to Mexico, Guatemala, and Nicaragua; however, a fairly rare, sparsely dispersed feral population of teosinte has been reported in Florida. All teosinte members can be crossed with cultivated maize to produce fertile F1 hybrids. Nonetheless, in the wild, introgressive hybridization from maize to teosinte is currently limited, in part, by several factors including distribution, genetic incompatibility, differences in flowering time, developmental morphology, dissemination, and dormancy. First-generation hybrids are generally less fit for survival and dissemination in the wild, and show substantially reduced reproductive capacity which acts as a significant constraint on introgression.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In Central America, many of these species occur where maize might be cultivated, however, gene introgression from Event 176 under natural conditions is highly unlikely. It is further unlikely that potential introgression of European corn borer resistance or glufosinate tolerance traits from Event 176 would cause teosinte to become more weedy in the absence of glufosinate herbicide selection.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The genus Tripsacum contains up to 16 recognized species, most of which are native to Mexico, Central and South America, but three of which exist as wild and/or cultivated species in the U.S. Hybrids of Tripsacum species with Zea are difficult to obtain outside of a laboratory and are often sterile or have greatly reduced fertility, and none are able to withstand even the mildest winters. Furthermore, none of the sexually compatible relatives of maize in the U.S. are considered to be weeds in the U.S. therefore it is unlikely that introgression of the bar gene would provide a selective advantage to these populations as they would not be routinely subject to herbicide treatments.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to Event 176, other than that conferred by resistance to European corn borer and herbicide tolerance to glufosinate. Maize is not a weed, and resistance to European corn borer or herbicide tolerance will not render maize weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics were modified. Potential introgression from maize Event 176 into wild relatives is not likely to increase the weediness potential of any resulting progeny nor adversely effect genetic diversity of related plants any more than would introgression from traditional maize hybrids.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cultivated maize is unlikely to establish in non-cropped habitats and there have been no reports of maize surviving as a weed. Maize volunteers are not uncommon but are easily controlled by mechanical or by using herbicides that are not based on glufosinate as appropriate. Zea mays is not invasive and is a weak competitor with very limited seed dispersal.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The history of use and literature suggest that the bacterial Bt protein is not toxic to humans, other vertebrates, and beneficial insects. This protein is active only against specific lepidopteran insects and no lepidopteran species are listed as threatened or endangered species in North America.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Studies were conducted on several nontarget organisms to determine the potential toxic effects of Cry1Ab protein on test organisms including adult honeybees (Apis melifera,), a predator lady beetle (Coleomegilla maculata), juveniles of the soil-dwelling invertebrate Collembola (springtails,Folsomia candida), earthworms (Eisenia foetida), juveniles of the freshwater invertebrate Daphnia magna, fall armyworm and black cutworm, Northern bobwhite chicks, and mice. Additional studies assessed the impact of Cry1Ab protein on the relative abundance of beneficial arthropods.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Results demonstrated that the larval development of honeybees and lady beetles were not affected when reared on pollen collected from Event 176 maize plants as compared to pollen from nontransgenic plants. Similarly, there was no effect on survival, immobilization, or sublethal toxicity reported for the small aquatic insect, Daphnia magna when exposed to pollen collected from Event 176. Survival rates, signs of toxicity, or loss of weight were not observed in earthworms exposed to leaf tissue from Event 176 maize as compared to the control treatments. Two lepidopteran insects (fall armyworm and black cutworm) that are not susceptible to native Cry1Ab were likewise not affected when feed Cry1Ab derived from leaf tissues. Three insects (ECB, corn earworm, and cabbage looper) that are susceptible to native Cry1Ab were also susceptible to plant-produced Cry1Ab. Results from high dose feeding studies of bobwhite quail fed a protein extract enriched in Cry1Ab isolated from Event 176 maize demonstrated no adverse effects on the bird.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Negative effects were observed in Collembola fed the Event 176 leaf protein (5 % mortality at 0.088 mg Cry1Ab /kg soil) while Collembolans fed with non-Bt maize protein were not adversely affected. The level of Cry1Ab was approximately 10 times greater than the maximum soil concentration that would occur if Event 176 plants were to be incorporated into the soil at anthesis. Under normal conditions, maize would be plowed under in the fall when plants have senesced, and the Cry1Ab protein in Event 176 would be present at very low levels at this time.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Acute oral toxicity studies were conducted with northern bobwhite quail and mice. These animals were fed Event 176-produced protein, and in the case of mice, were also fed bacterial-expressed protein. No mortality was observed and was not expected since Event 176-produced protein was shown to degrade very rapidly under simulated mammalian gastric conditions.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Small scale field studies demonstrated that the number of insects and insect diversity observed on plots planted to either Event 176 maize or a non-transformed counterpart were not significantly different. However, when compared to insect populations on plants treated with a common chemical insecticide (permethrin) versus Event 176 maize plants, the total numbers of beneficial insects (especially lady beetles) associated with Event 176 maize plants were higher.<br />\nResults from a study using an enriched leaf extract from Event 176 maize on the soil arthropod Collembola, Folsomia candida, showed that there was a reduction in adult survival and the number of offspring when fed concentrations of Cry1Ab protein at concentrations 200-fold higher than normal. This insect is one of a number of organisms that recycle plant debris in the field. The result was not totally unexpected since a related B. thuringiensis subsp. galleriae has been reported to kill Collembolla. Nonetheless, postharvest monitoring of field test with Event 176 maize plants showed no increase in visible amount of maize debris when compared to non-transgenic plants concluding that there should be no significant adverse effect on Collembola and no increase in maize plant debris as result of the cultivation of Event 176 maize.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In summary, it was concluded that cultivation of Event 176 maize should not have a significant potential to harm nontarget and beneficial organisms common to agricultural ecosystems, nor should it significantly impact species recognized as threatened or endangered.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Event 176 had no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of maize production. Since the risk of outcrossing with wild relatives in North America is remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits from Event 176 to species in unmanaged environments was insignificant.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Event 176 maize plants are not likely to eliminate the use of chemical insecticides which are traditionally applied to about 25 to 35% of the total maize acreage planted, since the primary target for most of these applications has been the coleopteran, corn rootworm. Event 176 maize may positively impact current agricultural practices used for insect control by 1) offering an alternative method for control of European corn borer (and potentially other Cry1Ab-susceptible pests of maize); 2) reducing the use of insecticides to control European corn borer and the resulting potential adverse effects of such insecticides on beneficial insects, farm worker safety, and ground water contamination; and 3) offering a new tool for managing insects that have become resistant to other insecticides currently used or expressed in maize, including other Bt-based insecticides.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Event 176 maize, along with glufosinate ammonium herbicides, is expected to positively impact current agricultural practices used for weed control by 1) offering growers a broad spectrum, post-emergent weed control system; 2) providing the opportunity to continue to move away from pre-emergent and residually active herbicides; 3) providing a new herbicidal mode of action in maize that allows for improved management of weeds which have developed resistance to herbicides with different modes of action; and 4) decreasing cultivation needs and increasing the amount of no-till acres. Volunteers of Event 176 can be easily controlled by selective mechanical or manual weed removal or by the use of herbicides with active ingredients other than glufosinate ammonium.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Other Considerations</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In order to prolong the effectiveness of plant-expressed Bt toxins, and the microbial spray formulations of these same toxins, regulatory authorities in Canada and U.S. have required developers to implement specific Insect Resistant Management (IRM) Programs. These programs are mandatory for all transgenic Bt-expressing plants, including Event 176, and require that growers plant a certain percentage of their acreage to non-transgenic varieties in order to reduce the potential for selecting Bt-resistant insect populations. Details on the specific design and requirements of individual IRM programs are published by the relevant regulatory authority.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 22:30:38'),
(3, 49, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Field testing has demonstrated that CBH-351 maize plants are well protected from European corn borer and exhibit tolerance to glufosinate ammonium herbicides at concentrations that provide effective weed control. CBH-351 maize has undergone field testing in a wide variety of locations, in 31 States and territories of the United States since 1995, and in Canada, Belgium, France, Chile and Argentina. This field testing was conducted, in part, to confirm that CBH-351 maize exhibits the desired agronomic characteristics and to demonstrate that CBH-351 maize did not pose a plant pest risk. The kernel composition, quality and other characteristics of CBH-351 maize were found to be similar to non-transgenic maize and should have no adverse impact on raw or processed agricultural commodities.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Since pollen production and viability were unchanged by the genetic modification resulting in CBH-351, pollen dispersal by wind and outcrossing frequency should be no different than for other maize varieties. Gene exchange between CBH-351 maize and other cultivated maize varieties will be similar to that which occurs naturally between cultivated maize varieties at the present time. In North America, where there are few plant species closely-related to maize in the wild, the risk of gene flow to other species appears remote. Cultivated maize, or maize, <i>Zea mays</i> L. subsp. mays, is sexually compatible with other members of the genus Zea, and to a much lesser degree with members of the genus Tripsacum.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Wild diploid and tetraploid members of Zea collectively referred to as teosinte are normally confined to Mexico, Guatemala, and Nicaragua; however, a fairly rare, sparsely dispersed feral population of teosinte has been reported in Florida. All teosinte members can be crossed with cultivated maize to produce fertile F1 hybrids. Nonetheless, in the wild, introgressive hybridization from maize to teosinte is currently limited, in part, by several factors including distribution, genetic incompatibility, differences in flowering time, developmental morphology, dissemination, and dormancy. First-generation hybrids are generally less fit for survival and dissemination in the wild, and show substantially reduced reproductive capacity which acts as a significant constraint on introgression.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In Central America, many of these species occur where maize might be cultivated, however, gene introgression from CBH-351 maize under natural conditions is highly unlikely. It is further unlikely that potential introgression of European corn borer resistance or glufosinate tolerance traits from CBH-351 maize would cause teosinte to become more weedy in the absence of glufosinate herbicide selection.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The genus Tripsacum contains up to 16 recognized species, most of which are native to Mexico, Central and South America, but three of which exist as wild and/or cultivated species in the U.S. Hybrids of Tripsacum species with Zea are difficult to obtain outside of a laboratory and are often sterile or have greatly reduced fertility, and none are able to withstand even the mildest winters. Furthermore, none of the sexually compatible relatives of maize in the U.S. are considered to be weeds in the U.S. therefore it is unlikely that introgression of the bar gene would provide a selective advantage to these populations as they would not be routinely subject to herbicide treatments.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><br />\n<b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to CHB-531 maize, other than that conferred by resistance to European corn borer and herbicide tolerance to glufosinate. Maize is not a weed, and resistance to European corn borer or herbicide tolerance will not render maize weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics were modified. Potential introgression from CBH-351 maize into wild relatives is not likely to increase the weediness potential of any resulting progeny nor adversely effect genetic diversity of related plants any more than would introgression from traditional maize hybrids.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cultivated maize is unlikely to establish in non-cropped habitats and there have been no reports of maize surviving as a weed. Maize volunteers are not uncommon but are easily controlled by mechanical or by using herbicides that are not based on glufosinate as appropriate. <i>Zea mays</i> is not invasive and is a weak competitor with very limited seed dispersal.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The history of use and literature suggest that the bacterial Bt protein is not toxic to humans, other vertebrates, and beneficial insects. This protein is active only against specific lepidopteran insects and no lepidopteran species are listed as threatened or endangered species in North America. The Cry9C toxin is also toxic against other Lepidoptera, including members of the families Pyralidae, Plutellidae, Sphingidae, and Noctuidae.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Studies were conductive on several nontarget organisms to determine the potential toxic effects of Cry9C protein on test organisms including adult honeybees, a predator ladybird beetle (<i>H. convergens</i>), juveniles of the soil-dwelling invertebrate Collembola (springtails) (<i>Folsomia candida</i>), earthworms, juveniles of the freshwater invertebrate Daphnia magna, Northern bobwhite chicks, and mice. The Cry9C was expressed in either whole plant powder or pollen derived from CBH-351 maize plants; or as purified from a Cry-minus B.t. bacterial strain engineered to express the protein toxin. Control maize plant powder and pollen test substances lacking insecticidal activity (as assayed against the European corn borer) were used in these studies to determine whether effects were specific to the CBH-351 transformation event. No effects on these organisms were detected during any of these studies that could be related to the presence of the insecticidal Cry9C protein in CBH-351 maize.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Small scale field studies conducted in 1996 in Johnston, Iowa demonstrated that the number of predators observed on plots planted to either CBH-351 maize or a non-transformed counterpart did not show a significantly different pattern among plots. In addition, the diversity of predators observed in both types of plots was equal.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In summary, it was concluded that cultivation of CBH-351 maize should not have a significant potential to harm nontarget and beneficial organisms common to agricultural ecosystems, nor should it significantly impact species recognized as threatened or endangered.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">CBH-351 maize has no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of maize production. Since the risk of outcrossing with wild relatives in North America is remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits from CBH-351 maize to species in unmanaged environments was insignificant.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">CBH-351 maize plants are not likely to eliminate the use of chemical insecticides which are traditionally applied to about 25 to 35% of the total maize acreage planted, since the primary target for most of these applications has been the coleopteran, corn rootworm. CBH-351 maize may positively impact current agricultural practices used for insect control by 1) offering an alternative method for control of European corn borer (and potentially other Cry9C-susceptible pests of maize); 2) reducing the use of insecticides to control European corn borer and the resulting potential adverse effects of such insecticides on beneficial insects, farm worker safety, and ground water contamination; and 3) offering a new tool for managing insects that have become resistant to other insecticides currently used or expressed in maize, including other Bt-based insecticides.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">CBH-351 maize exhibits tolerance to glufosinate ammonium herbicides at concentrations that provide effective weed control and excellent crop safety. CBH-351 maize, along with glufosinate ammonium herbicides, is expected to positively impact current agricultural practices used for weed control by 1) offering growers a broad spectrum, post-emergent weed control system; 2) providing the opportunity to continue to move away from pre-emergent and residually active herbicides; 3) providing a new herbicidal mode of action in maize that allows for improved management of weeds which have developed resistance to herbicides with different modes of action; and 4) decreasing cultivation needs and increasing the amount of no-till acres. Volunteers of CBH-351 can be easily controlled by selective mechanical or manual weed removal or by the use of herbicides with active ingredients other than glufosinate ammonium.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Other Considerations</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In order to prolong the effectiveness of plant-expressed Bt toxins, and the microbial spray formulations of these same toxins, regulatory authorities in Canada and U.S. have required developers to implement specific Insect Resistant Management (IRM) Programs. These programs are mandatory for all transgenic Bt-expressing plants, including CBH-351 maize, and require that growers plant a certain percentage of their acreage to non-transgenic varieties in order to reduce the potential for selecting Bt-resistant insect populations. Details on the specific design and requirements of individual IRM programs are published by the relevant regulatory authority.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:10:57'),
(4, 7, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;">DBT418 maize has been field tested since 1993 in the major maize growing regions of the United States as well as in Argentina, Canada, France, and Italy. A number of traits (<i>e.g.</i>, yield, grain moisture, final stand count, seedling vigor, plant height) were evaluated to determine how the genetic modifications altered agronomic performance. Very small differences were detected between the non-transformed control and DBT418 maize for grain moisture, seedling vigor, silk growing degree units, stay-green (a senescence rating) and intactness (primarily a measure of intactness of tassels and leaves above the ear). These differences were within the normal range of variation for maize plants and would not be expected to increase weediness. The transgenic line DBT418 provided significant protection from feeding damage from the European corn borer (<i>Ostrinia nubilalis</i>) and Southwestern corn borer (<i>Diatraea grandiosella</i>). Growth inhibition of corn earworm (<i>Heliothis zea</i>) was also observed as a result of silk and ear feeding on DBT418 plants. No significant differences were observed in resistance to a number of other significant insect pests or diseases compared to nontransgenic controls. Field data reports and data on agronomic traits confirmed that DBT418 exhibited the desired agronomic characteristics and did not pose a plant pest risk.</p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Since pollen production and viability were unchanged by the genetic modification resulting in DBT418, pollen dispersal by wind and outcrossing frequency should be no different than for other maize varieties. Gene exchange between DBT418 and other cultivated maize varieties will be similar to that which occurs naturally between cultivated maize varieties at the present time. In North America, where there are few wild plant species closely-related to maize, the risk of gene flow to other species is remote. Furthermore, none of the sexually compatible relatives of maize in the U.S. are considered to be weeds in the U.S., therefore it is unlikely that introgression of the <i>bar</i> gene would provide a selective advantage to these populations as they would not be routinely subject to herbicide treatments.</p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to DBT418, other than that conferred by resistance to European corn borer and herbicide tolerance to glufosinate. Maize is not a weed, and resistance to European corn borer or herbicide tolerance will not render maize weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics were modified.</p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cultivated maize is unlikely to establish in non-cropped habitats and there have been no reports of maize surviving as a weed. In agriculture, maize volunteers are not uncommon but are easily controlled by mechanical means or by using other non-glufonsinate containing herbicides as appropriate. <i>Zea mays</i> is not invasive and is a weak competitor with very limited seed dispersal.</p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The history of use and literature suggest that the bacterial Bt protein is not toxic to humans, other vertebrates, and beneficial insects. This protein is active only against specific lepidopteran insects and no lepidopteran species are listed as threatened or endangered species in North America.</p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Other invertebrates and all vertebrate organisms, including non- target birds, mammals and humans would not be effected by Cry1Ac as these organisms do not have the receptor protein found in the midgut of target insects. Experimental studies demonstrated that soil-dwelling organims (collembola, earthworms) and birds (quail) were not adversely affected by exposure to pollen from DBT418 corn, or as a result of exposure to DBT418 leaf material or Cry1Ac on detritus.</p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;">DBT418 had no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of maize production. Since the risk of outcrossing with wild relatives in North America is remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits from DBT418 to species in unmanaged environments was insignificant.</p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Other Considerations</b></p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In order to prolong the effectiveness of plant-expressed Bt toxins, and the microbial spray formulations of these same toxins, regulatory authorities in Canada and U.S. have required developers to implement specific Insect Resistant Management (IRM) Programs. These programs are mandatory for all transgenic Bt-expressing plants, including DBT418, and require that growers plant a certain percentage of their acreage to non-transgenic varieties in order to reduce the potential for selecting Bt-resistant insect populations. Details on the specific design and requirements of individual IRM programs are published by the relevant regulatory authority.</p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;">DBT418 maize plants are not likely to eliminate the use of chemical insecticides which are traditionally applied to about 25 to 35% of the total maize acreage planted, since the primary target for most of these applications has been the coleopteran, corn rootworm. DBT418 maize may positively impact current agricultural practices used for insect control by 1) offering an alternative method for control of European corn borer (and potentially other Cry1Ac-susceptible pests of maize); 2) reducing the use of insecticides to control European corn borer and the resulting potential adverse effects of such insecticides on beneficial insects, farm worker safety, and ground water contamination; and 3) offering a new tool for managing insects that have become resistant to other insecticides currently used or expressed in maize, including other Bt-based insecticides.</p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;">DBT418 maize, along with glufosinate ammonium herbicides, is expected to positively impact current agricultural practices used for weed control by 1) offering growers a broad spectrum, post-emergent weed control system; 2) providing the opportunity to continue to move away from pre-emergent and residually active herbicides; 3) providing a new herbicidal mode of action in maize that allows for improved management of weeds which have developed resistance to herbicides with different modes of action; and 4) decreasing cultivation needs and increasing the amount of no-till acres. Volunteers of DBT418 can be easily controlled by selective mechanical or manual weed removal or by the use of herbicides with active ingredients other than glufosinate ammonium.</p>\r\n', NULL, '2013-09-02 14:23:29'),
(5, 6, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The maize events T14 and T25 have been field tested in the major maize growing regions of the United States since 1992 and in Canada since 1993. T14 and T25 have been evaluated extensively in the laboratory, greenhouse, and field experiments. Field reports on T14 and T25 compared to non-transgenic counterparts, determined that agronomic characteristics such as yield, plant height, over-wintering capacity, flowering period, and disease susceptibility were within the normal range of expression currently displayed by commercial maize hybrids. Overall the field data reports and data on agronomic traits showed that maize events T14 and T25 and lines derived from these events, have no potential to pose a plant pest risk.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Since pollen production and viability were unchanged by the genetic modification resulting in maize lines T14 and T25, pollen dispersal by wind and outcrossing frequency should be no different than for other maize varieties. Gene exchange between maize lines T14 and T25 and other cultivated maize varieties will be similar to that which occurs naturally between cultivated maize varieties at the present time. In Canada and the United States, where there are few plant species closely-related to maize in the wild, the risk of gene flow to other species appears remote. Cultivated maize, or maize, <i>Zea mays</i> L. subsp. mays, is sexually compatible with other members of the genus Zea, and to a much lesser degree with members of the genus Tripsacum.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to maize lines T14 and T25, other than that conferred by resistance to glufosinate ammonium herbicides. Resistance to glufosinate ammonium will not, in itself, render maize weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics were modified.<br />\nCultivated maize is unlikely to establish in non-cropped habitats and there have been no reports of maize surviving as a weed. In agriculture, maize volunteers are not uncommon but are easily controlled by mechanical means or by using herbicides, other than glufosinate ammonium. <i>Zea mays</i> is not invasive and is a weak competitor with very limited seed dispersal.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was determined that genetically modified maize events T14 and T25 did not have a significant adverse impact on organisms beneficial to plants or agriculture, nontarget organisms, these events were not expected to impact on threatened or endangered species. The PAT enzyme responsible for glufosinate ammonium tolerance has very specific enzymatic activity, does not possess proteolytic or heat stability typical of toxic compounds, and does not affect the metabolism of the plant. Other crops such as wheat, barley, lentils, peas, flax and alfalfa, have been modified by recombinant DNA techniques to express the PAT enzyme with no apparent effect on the agronomic performance of succeeding crops. Expression levels of PAT in T14 and T25 were comparable to other transformed species and therefore it was concluded that no significant residual effects from T14 and T25 were expected.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">T14 and T25 have no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend their use beyond the current geographic range of maize production. Since the risk of outcrossing with wild relatives in Canada and the United States is remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits from T14 and T25 maize lines to species in unmanaged environments was insignificant. It was determined that the overall relative impact on plant biodiversity was neutral, as was the impact on animal and microbe biodiversity since the introduced PAT enzyme was not expected to alter the plant&#39;s metabolism and as such, novel compounds would not be produced.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 20:57:42'),
(6, 16, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The maize event BT11 has been field tested in various lines and hybrids, specifically the hybrids X4334CBR and X4734CBR, in the major maize growing regions of the United States since 1992, in Canada since 1993, and in Europe.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Field reports on maize event BT11 compared to non-transgenic counterparts, determined that agronomic characteristics such as vegetative vigour, male and female fertility, time to maturity, seed yield, kernel size, weight and density, were within the normal range of expression currently displayed by commercial maize hybrids. In addition, the level of expression of the PAT enzyme in BT11 maize was found to be at a level high enough to confer tolerance to phosphinothricin herbicides. Overall the field data reports and data on agronomic traits showed that maize event BT11 and lines derived from BT11 have no potential to pose a plant pest risk.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Since pollen production and viability were unchanged by the genetic modification resulting in maize line BT11, pollen dispersal by wind and outcrossing frequency should be no different than for other maize varieties. Gene exchange between BT11 and other cultivated maize varieties will be similar to that which occurs naturally between cultivated maize varieties at the present time. In Canada and the United States, where there are few plant species closely-related to maize in the wild, the risk of gene flow to other species appears remote. Cultivated maize, or maize, <i>Zea mays</i> L. subsp. mays, is sexually compatible with other members of the genus Zea, and to a much lesser degree with members of the genus Tripsacum.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to BT11, other than that conferred by resistance to European corn borer. Resistance to European corn borer will not, in itself, render maize weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics were modified.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cultivated maize is unlikely to establish in non-cropped habitats and there have been no reports of maize surviving as a weed. In agriculture, maize volunteers are not uncommon but are easily controlled by mechanical means or by using herbicides. <i>Zea mays</i> is not invasive and is a weak competitor with very limited seed dispersal.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">BT11 maize and the plant-expressed insectidical protein, Cry1Ab, should not have a significant potential to harm organisms beneficial to agricultural ecosystems. The history of use and literature suggest that the bacterial <i>Bt</i> protein is not toxic to humans, other vertebrates, and beneficial insects. Most insecticidal protein toxins from <i>B. thuringiensis</i> subspecies kurstaki, including Cry1Ab, have been shown to be specifically toxic to Lepidopteran larvae on ingestion and appear non-toxic to other species of insects, either directly or through secondary ingestion (predation). Feeding studies conducted under laboratory conditions have produced variable results on the development of some predatory insect species which have fed on prey that have fed on Btk material. Direct feeding studies with pollen from GM maize have shown no effects on honeybee development, lady beetles, insidious flowerbug and green lacewing. Results from feeding studies of young quail fed with modified maize meal in their diet showed no adverse effects.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In summary, it was determined that genetically modified maize event BT11 did not present an increased risk to, or impact on interacting organisms, including humans, with the exception of specific lepidopteran insect species. Furthermore, BT11 was not expected to impact on threatened or endangered lepidopteran species, as none were listed which feed on maize plants in North America.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">BT11 has no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of maize production. Since the risk of outcrossing with wild relatives in Canada and the United States is remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits from BT11 maize to species in unmanaged environments was insignificant.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Other Considerations</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In order to prolong the effectiveness of plant-expressed Bt toxins, and the microbial spray formulations of these same toxins, regulatory authorities in Canada and U.S. have required developers to implement specific Insect Resistant Management (IRM) Programs. These programs are mandatory for all transgenic <i>Bt</i>-expressing plants, including maize event BT11, and require that growers plant a certain percentage of their acreage to non-transgenic varieties in order to reduce the potential for selecting <i>Bt</i>-resistant insect populations. Details on the specific design and requirements of individual IRM programs are published by the relevant regulatory authority.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">BT11 maize plants are not likely to eliminate the use of chemical insecticides which are traditionally applied to about 25 to 35% of the total maize acreage planted. BT11 maize may positively impact current agricultural practices used for insect control by 1) offering an alternative method for control of European corn borer (and potentially other Cry1Ab-susceptible pests of maize); 2) reducing the use of insecticides to control European corn borer and the resulting potential adverse effects of such insecticides on beneficial insects, farm worker safety, and ground water contamination; and 3) offering a new tool for managing insects that have become resistant to other insecticides currently used or expressed in maize, including other <i>Bt</i>-based insecticides.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 22:05:58'),
(7, 1, '<!-- Generated by XStandard version 3.0.0.0 on 2012-10-23T14:40:19 -->\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Maize line GA21 was field tested from 1994 to 1996 in four U.S. states, Puerto Rico and Canada. Field trial reports indicated that transgenic GA21 maize did not display any abnormal characteristics, did not display any increased tendancy to weediness, and had no observable effect on non-target organisms or the general environment. Maize line GA21 retained the agronomic characteristics of its parental inbred line and differed only in its tolerance to glyphosate.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Since pollen production and viability were unchanged by the genetic modification resulting in maize line GA21, pollen dispersal by wind and outcrossing frequency should be no different than for other maize varieties. Gene exchange between GA21 and other cultivated maize varieties will be similar to that which occurs naturally between cultivated maize varieties at the present time. In Canada and the United States, where there are few plant species closely-related to maize in the wild, the risk of gene flow to other species is remote. Cultivated maize, <i>Zea mays</i> L. subsp. mays, is sexually compatible with other members of the genus Zea, and to a much lesser degree with members of the genus Tripsacum. None of the sexually compatible relatives of maize in Canada or the United States are considered to be weeds in these countries and it is therefore unlikely that introgression of the mEPSPS gene would provide a selective advantage to these populations as they would not be routinely subject to herbicide treatments.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to maize line GA21, other than that conferred by resistance to glyphosate herbicide. Resistance to glyphosate containing herbicides will not, in itself, render maize weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics were modified.<br />\nCultivated maize is unlikely to establish in non-cropped habitats and there have been no reports of maize surviving as a weed. In agriculture, maize volunteers are not uncommon but are easily controlled by mechanical means or by using herbicides that are not based on glyphosate as appropriate. <i>Zea mays</i> is not invasive and is a weak competitor with very limited seed dispersal.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Analysis of GA21 maize determined that no toxic components were present in concentrations significantly different from the levels in non-transgenic maize. The expression of mEPSPS in maize line GA21 was not expected to pose a risk since this protein was nearly (99.3%) identical to the endogenous maize EPSPS. Field observations of maize line GA21 revealed no negative effects on nontarget organisms. These results combined with the lack of known toxicity of EPSPS suggested that the mEPSPS protein had no deleterious effects on organisms recognized as beneficial to agriculture (<i>e.g.</i>, earthworms, honey bees) or on other organisms, including any species recognized as threatened or endangered in Canada and the United States.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Maize line GA21 has no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of maize production. Since the risk of outcrossing with wild relatives in Canada and the United States is remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits from GA21 to species in unmanaged environments was not a significant concern.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Other Considerations</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><br />\nConsideration was made as to whether the introduction of crops tolerant to glyphosate would result in a significant increase in the use of the herbicide, and lead to the evolution of glyphosate resistant weeds. It was determined that the risk of increasing the selection of glyphosate tolerant weeds was low and could be mitigated through the use of other approved herbicides with a mode of action dissimilar to glyphosate. It was concluded that there was unlikely to be any significant adverse impact on agricultural practices associated with the use of the GA21 maize line.</p>\n\n<p>&nbsp;</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 20:35:25');
INSERT INTO `gmcropdatabase_events_esafeties` (`id`, `eventId`, `description`, `created`, `updated`) VALUES
(8, 51, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Since pollen production and viability were unchanged by the genetic modification resulting in MON80100, pollen dispersal by wind and outcrossing frequency should be no different than for other maize varieties. Gene exchange between MON80100 and other cultivated maize varieties will be similar to that which occurs naturally between cultivated maize varieties at the present time. In Canada and the United States, where there are few plant species closely-related to maize in the wild, the risk of gene flow to other species is remote. Cultivated maize, or maize, <i>Zea mays</i> L. subsp. mays, is sexually compatible with other members of the genus Zea, and to a much lesser degree with members of the genus Tripsacum.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to MON80100, other than that conferred by resistance to European corn borer. Resistance to ECB will not, in itself, render maize weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics were modified. Cultivated maize is unlikely to establish in non-cropped habitats and there have been no reports of maize surviving as a weed. Maize volunteers are not uncommon but are easily controlled using herbicides or mechanical means. <i>Zea mays</i> is not invasive and is a weak competitor with very limited seed dispersal.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The history of use and literature suggest that the bacterial <i>Bt</i> protein is not toxic to humans, other vertebrates, and beneficial insects. The <i>Bt</i> protein expressed in MON80100 maize (Cry1Ab) was shown to be equivalent to the original microbial protein. This protein is active only against specific lepidopteran insects and no lepidopteran species are listed as threatened or endangered species in Canada or the United States.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Maize inbreds and hybrids expressing the Cry1Ab protein were compared to their non-transformed counterpart for relative abundance of beneficial arthropods. Field studies demonstrated that Cry1Ab had neither a direct nor an indirect effect on the beneficial arthropod populations.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Numerous dietary studies assessed the potential toxicity of the Cry1Ab trypsin-resistant core protein on several nontarget organisms. A protein concentration greater than 10 times the amount that killed target Lepidoptera had no visible effect on honey bees (<i>Apis mellifera</i> L.) or their larvae. Larvae of green lacewing (<i>Chrysopa carnea</i>), a beneficial predatory insect, were not adversely effected when fed moth eggs for seven days that were coated with about eight times the concentration (16.7 ppm) of Cry1Ab core protein that kills ECB. When parasitic hymenoptera, <i>Brachymeria intermedia</i>, which is a beneficial parasite of the housefly (<i>Musca domestica</i>), were exposed to ten times the concentration of activated Cry1Ab protein that kills ECB (20 ppm in honey/water solution) for thirty days there were no treatment-related mortality or signs of toxicity. Similar studes were conducted on Ladybird beetles (<i>Hippodamia convergens</i>), a beneficial predaceous insect which feeds on aphids and other plant insects commonly found on stems and foliage of weeds and cultivated plants. Ladybird beetles exposed to activated Cry1Ab protein at a test concentration of 20 ppm in a honey/water solution for nine days did not exhibit treatment related mortality or signs of toxicity.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">A bird study on quails was conducted to assess the wholesomeness of insect protected maize meal fed to quail since birds may feed on maize left in the field after harvest. No mortality occurred in birds fed up to 10% (nominal 100,000 ppm) raw maize seed meal in their diet. Consumption of diet containing 10% of the diet on weight basis of raw maize meal is equivalent to the quail eating 138 seeds/kg body weight per day. The seeds contained 0.57 ppm of the Cry1Ab protein.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In summary, it was determined that when compared with currently commercialized maize varieties, MON810 maize did not present an increased risk to or impact on interacting organisms, including humans, with the exception of specific lepidopteran insect species. It was also concluded that there was no reason to believe that deleterious effects or significant impacts on nontarget organisms, including beneficial organisms, would result from the EPSPS encoding and <i>gox</i> genes used as selectable markers during development of MON80100.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">MON80100 has no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of maize production. Since the risk of outcrossing with wild relatives in Canada and the United States is remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits from MON80100 maize to species in unmanaged environments was not significant.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Other Considerations</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In order to prolong the effectiveness of plant-expressed <i>Bt</i> toxins, and the microbial spray formulations of these same toxins, regulatory authorities in Canada and United States have required developers to implement specific Insect Resistant Management (IRM) Programs. These programs are mandatory for all transgenic <i>Bt</i>-expressing plants, including MON80100 maize, and require that growers plant a certain percentage of their acreage to non-transgenic varieties in order to reduce the potential for selecting <i>Bt</i>-resistant insect populations. Details on the specific design and requirements of individual IRM programs are published by the relevant regulatory authority.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">MON80100 maize plants are not likely to eliminate the use of chemical insecticides which are traditionally applied to about 25 to 35% of the total maize acreage planted, since the primary target for most of these applications has been the coleopteran, corn rootworm. MON80100 maize may positively impact current agricultural practices used for insect control by 1) offering an alternative method for control of European corn borer (and potentially other Cry1Ab-susceptible pests of maize); 2) reducing the use of insecticides to control European corn borer and the resulting potential adverse effects of such insecticides on beneficial insects, farm worker safety, and ground water contamination; and 3) offering a new tool for managing insects that have become resistant to other insecticides currently used or expressed in maize, including other <i>Bt</i>-based insecticides.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:14:22'),
(9, 12, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">MON809 maize was field tested under confined conditions in Canada from 1994-1996. Field reports on MON809 and corn hybrids derived from MON809 determined that early stand establishment, vegetative vigour, time to maturity and seed production were within the normal range of expression of these traits in commercial corn hybrids. Hybrids derived from MON809 produced similar yields in the absence of ECB, but under heavy infestations of ECB, MON809 hybrids out-yielded their non-transgenic counterparts by 10-15%. Hybrids derived from MON809 were not tolerant to the concentrations of glyphosate herbicide that are typically used for weed control. No significant differences were observed in resistance to a number of other significant insect pests or diseases compared to non-transgenic controls. Overall the field data reports and data on agronomic traits showed that MON809 lines have no potential to pose a plant pest risk.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Since pollen production and viability were unchanged by the genetic modification resulting in maize line MON809, pollen dispersal by wind and outcrossing frequency should be no different than for other maize varieties. Gene exchange between MON809 and other cultivated maize varieties will be similar to that which occurs naturally between cultivated maize varieties at the present time. In Canada and the United States, where there are few plant species closely-related to maize in the wild, the risk of gene flow to other species is remote. Cultivated maize, <i>Zea mays</i> L. subsp. mays, is sexually compatible with other members of the genus Zea, and to a much lesser degree with members of the genus Tripsacum.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to MON809, other than that conferred by resistance to ECB, which will not, in itself, render maize weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics were modified. Cultivated maize is unlikely to establish in non-cropped habitats and there have been no reports of maize surviving as a weed. In agriculture, maize volunteers are not uncommon but are easily controlled by mechanical means or by using herbicides. <i>Zea mays</i> is not invasive and is a weak competitor with very limited seed dispersal.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">MON809 maize and the Cry1Ab protein, in particular, should not have a significant potential to harm organisms beneficial to agricultural ecosystems. The history of use and literature suggest that the bacterial <i>Bt</i> protein is not toxic to humans, other vertebrates, and beneficial insects. Most insecticidal protein toxins from <i>B. thuringiensis</i> subspecies kurstaki, including Cry1Ab, have been shown to be specifically toxic to Lepidopteran larvae on ingestion and appear non-toxic to other species of insects, either directly or through secondary ingestion (predation). Laboratory studies of honeybee larvae and adults, predaceous insects (green lacewing larvae, ladybird beetles), and parasitic hymenoptera exposed to the Cry1Ab protein recorded no discernible effects at approximately 10 times the usual LC50 dose for a target insect. Field examination of beneficial arthropods (the Anthocorid <i>Orius insidiosus</i> and spiders) in genetically modified MON809 maize, concluded that any potential impact on non-target arthropods would be less than that from the use of conventional insecticides. Results from feeding studies of young quail fed with modified maize meal in their diet showed no adverse effects. Studies were conducted to evaluate the impact of residual MON809 maize on soil organisms and soil function. It was shown that the <i>Bt</i> endotoxin may become adsorbed to some soil fractions and that degradation was by microbial action. However, since very little of the crop material remains after harvest for incorporation it was concluded based on evidence available that the risks to organisms and soil function were very low. In summary, it was determined that genetically modified maize MON809 did not present an increased risk to, or impact on interacting organisms, including humans, with the exception of specific lepidopteran insect species. Furthermore, MON809 will not impact on threatened or endangered lepidopteran species, as none are listed which feed on maize plants in Canada or the United States. In addition, these organisms are not expected to be affected by the expressed CP4 EPSPS.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">MON809 has no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of maize production. Since the risk of outcrossing with wild relatives in Canada and the United States is remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits from MON809 maize to species in unmanaged environments was insignificant.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Other Considerations</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In order to prolong the effectiveness of plant-expressed <i>Bt</i> toxins, and the microbial spray formulations of these same toxins, regulatory authorities in Canada and U.S. have required developers to implement specific Insect Resistant Management (IRM) Programs. These programs are mandatory for all transgenic <i>Bt</i>-expressing plants, including MON809 maize, and require that growers plant a certain percentage of their acreage to non-transgenic varieties in order to reduce the potential for selecting <i>Bt</i>-resistant insect populations. Details on the specific design and requirements of individual IRM programs are published by the relevant regulatory authority. MON809 maize plants are not likely to eliminate the use of chemical insecticides, which are traditionally applied to about 25 to 35% of the total planted maize acreage. MON809 maize may positively impact current agricultural practices used for insect control by 1) offering an alternative method for control of European corn borer (and potentially other Cry1Ab-susceptible pests of maize); 2) reducing the use of insecticides to control European corn borer and the resulting potential adverse effects of such insecticides on beneficial insects, farm worker safety, and ground water contamination; and 3) offering a new tool for managing insects that have become resistant to other insecticides currently used or expressed in maize, including other <i>Bt</i>-based insecticides.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 21:57:01'),
(10, 5, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">MON802 maize has been field tested since 1993 in the major maize growing regions of the United States and Puerto Rico, as well as in Canada (1995, 1996), Chile, Argentina, France, Italy, South Africa, and Costa Rica. The studies demonstrated that MON802 maize retained the agronomic characteristics of the parental line. The transgenic line provided significant protection from feeding damage from ECB throughout the season, while some protection was noted from Southwestern corn borer (<i>Diatraea grandiosella</i>) and corn earworm (<i>Heliothis zea</i>). No significant differences were observed in resistance to a number of other significant insect pests or diseases compared to non-transgenic controls. Overall the field data reports and data on agronomic traits showed that MON802 lines have no potential to pose a plant pest risk.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Since pollen production and viability were unchanged by the genetic modification resulting in maize line MON802, pollen dispersal by wind and outcrossing frequency should be no different than for other maize varieties. Gene exchange between MON802 and other cultivated maize varieties will be similar to that which occurs naturally between cultivated maize varieties at the present time. In the United States and Canada, where there are few plant species closely-related to maize in the wild, the risk of gene flow to other species is remote. Cultivated maize, <i>Zea mays</i> L. subsp. mays, is sexually compatible with other members of the genus Zea, and to a much lesser degree with members of the genus Tripsacum. However, none of the sexually compatible relatives of maize in the U.S. are considered to be weeds in the U.S., therefore it is unlikely that introgression of the CP4 EPSPS gene would provide a selective advantage to these populations as they would not be routinely subject to herbicide treatments.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to MON802, other than that conferred by resistance to ECB and tolerance to glyphosate herbicide, which will not, in itself, render maize weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics were modified.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cultivated maize is unlikely to establish in non-cropped habitats and there have been no reports of maize surviving as a weed. In agriculture, maize volunteers are not uncommon but are easily controlled by mechanical means or by using herbicides that are not based on glyphosate. <i>Zea mays</i> is not invasive and is a weak competitor with very limited seed dispersal.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">MON802 maize and the Cry1Ab protein, in particular, should not have a significant potential to harm organisms beneficial to agricultural ecosystems. The history of use and literature suggest that the bacterial <i>Bt</i> protein is not toxic to humans, other vertebrates, and beneficial insects. Most insecticidal protein toxins from <i>B. thuringiensis</i> subspecies kurstaki, including Cry1Ab, have been shown to be very selective for lepidopteran insects. Dietary toxicity studies on the effect of the microbial B.t.k. protein on non-target insects, including pollinators (honeybees), predaceous insects (green lacewing larvae, ladybird beetles) and parasitic Hymenoptera demonstrated that there was no discernible effect at approximately 10 times the usual LC50 dose for a target insect. Furthermore, MON802 will not impact on threatened or endangered lepidopteran species, as none are listed which feed on maize plants in the United States or Canada. In addition, these organisms are also not expected to be affected by the CP4 EPSPS or <i>gox</i> gene products.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">MON802 has no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of maize production. Since the risk of outcrossing with wild relatives in the United States and Canada is remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits from MON802 maize to species in unmanaged environments was not significant.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Other Considerations</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In order to prolong the effectiveness of plant-expressed <i>Bt</i> toxins, and the microbial spray formulations of these same toxins, regulatory authorities in Canada and U.S. have required developers to implement specific Insect Resistant Management (IRM) Programs. These programs are mandatory for all transgenic <i>Bt</i>-expressing plants, including MON802 maize, and require that growers plant a certain percentage of their acreage to non-transgenic varieties in order to reduce the potential for selecting <i>Bt</i>-resistant insect populations. Details on the specific design and requirements of individual IRM programs are published by the relevant regulatory authority.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">MON802 maize plants are not likely to eliminate the use of chemical insecticides which are traditionally applied to about 25 to 35% of the total maize acreage planted, since the primary target for most of these applications has been the coleopteran, corn rootworm. MON802 maize may positively impact current agricultural practices used for insect control by 1) offering an alternative method for control of ECB (and potentially other Cry1Ab-susceptible pests of maize); 2) reducing the use of insecticides to control European corn borer and the resulting potential adverse effects of such insecticides on beneficial insects, farm worker safety, and ground water contamination; and 3) offering a new tool for managing insects that have become resistant to other insecticides currently used or expressed in maize, including other <i>Bt</i>-based insecticides.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Consideration was given as to whether the introduction of crops tolerant to glyphosate would result in a significant increase in the use of the herbicide, and lead to the evolution of glyphosate resistant weeds. It was determined that the risk of increasing the selection of glyphosate tolerant weeds was low and could be mitigated through the use of other approved herbicides with a mode of action dissimilar to glyphosate. It was concluded that there was unlikely to be any significant adverse impact on agricultural practices associated with the use of the MON802 maize line.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 20:42:36'),
(11, 23, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The canola line GT73 was field tested in Canada starting in 1992, in the United States since 1995 and in Europe. Agronomic and adaptation characteristics such as vegetative vigour, overwintering capacity, days to flowering, time to maturity, seed production or yield, germination and dormancy were within the normal range of expression of characteristics in unmodified counterparts. Stress adaptation was evaluated, including resistance to major <i>B. napus</i> pests such as the fungal pathogen <i>Leptosphaeria maculans</i> (blackleg) and other pests (<i>e.g.</i>, sclerotinia, flea beetles, diamondback moth larvae) and determined to fall within the ranges currently displayed by commercial varieties. Similarly no differences were observed for abiotic stress factors such as heat, drought and frost. The only significant difference between GT73 canola and the parental non-transformed variety was the increase in the CP4 EPSPS enzyme and GOX protein that confer tolerance to glyphosate. Overall the field data reports demonstrated that canola GT73 has no potential to pose a plant pest risk.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Transgenic canola line GT73 displayed normal reproductive characteristics. <i>B. napus</i> plants are known to outcross up to 30% with other plants of the same species, and potentially with plants of related species <i>B. rapa</i>, <i>B. juncea</i>, <i>B. carinata</i>, <i>B. nigra</i>, <i>Diplotaxis muralis</i>, <i>Raphanus raphanistrum</i>, and <i>Erucastrum gallicum</i>. Previous studies have demonstrated that gene flow is most likely to occur with <i>B. rapa</i>.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The genes coding for glyphosate tolerance, CP4 EPSPS and goxv247 are not expected to confer an ecological advantage to potential hybrid offspring. If glyphosate tolerant individuals arose through interspecific or intergeneric hybridization, the novel trait would confer no competitive advantage to these plants unless these populations were routinely subject to herbicide treatments. This may occur in managed ecosystems where glyphosate containing herbicides are applied for broad spectrum weed control, or when used to control weeds in plant varieties developed for tolerance to glyphosate. In the event that a glyphosate tolerant plant survived, the herbicide-tolerant individual would be easily controlled using mechanical and other available chemical means.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Field studies on weediness potential, such invasiveness and survival characteristics, comparing GT73 canola to non-transgenic counterparts determined that the transgenic lines were not different from their counterparts in this respect. Studies on fitness characteristics such as germination, seed production, pest and disease resistance, response to abiotic factors and sensitivity to herbicides other than glyphosate, demonstrated that there was no increase in weediness potential for canola line GT73. It was determined that glyphosate tolerance did not confer a competitive advantage to GT73 canola over non-transgenic varieties since the herbicide resistance trait did not confer any pest resistance, alter reproductive biology or change any physiology related to survival. It was determined that weed management control would not be affected, since glyphosate tolerant <i>B. napus</i> volunteer plants were shown to be easily managed using alternative herbicides with different modes of action. It was concluded that GT73 canola had no altered weed or invasiveness potential compared to currently commercialized <i>B. napus</i> varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was determined that genetically modified canola line GT73 did not have a significant adverse impact on organisms beneficial to plants or agriculture, nontarget organisms, and was not expected to impact on threatened or endangered species. The novel proteins CP4 EPSPS and GOX expressed in GT73 did not result in altered toxicity or allergenicity properties as previously determined from studies using simulated digestive fluids, acute toxicity studies in mice, and amino acid sequence homology studies.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Plant residue studies were conducted to determine the effect of residues from GT73 on the agronomic performance of succeeding crops of barley and peas. No significant differences in either plant counts or grain yield were identified between field plots where GT73 and the non-modified counterpart &#39;Westar&#39; had been previously grown.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic canola line GT73 has no novel phenotypic characteristics which would extend the use beyond the current geographic range of canola/rapeseed production. Since outcross species are only found in disturbed habitats, transfer of novel traits would not have an impact on unmanaged environments. Studies have demonstrated that GT73 was not invasive of natural habitats, and that it was not more competitive than its counterparts, both in natural and managed ecosystems. It was determined that the relative impact on biodiversity of GT73 was equivalent to that of currently commercialized canola lines.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 22:27:21'),
(12, 62, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Trials</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Carnation line 66 and derived lines have been tested in trials in the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Australia. Results demonstrated that genetically modified carnations had a vase-life in water of 22 days, without requiring chemical treatment with STS or AOA. In the same study, non-genetically modified carnations only had a vase-life in water of 10 days, and required treatment with STS or AOA to guarantee a vase-life in water of at least 8 days.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The commercial standard carnation varieties are generally male sterile and rarely produce anthers. In the case of fertile flowers, little pollen is produced, which can only be transferred by insects. In commercial carnation production, outcrossing is unlikely as flowers are cut before opening. Should flowers open, only certain insects can access nectaries in flowers and there are very few opportunities for this to occur during transit and sale. Furthermore, carnations plants require 6 weeks for seed development. A genetically modified cut carnation flower lasts only 3-4 weeks, which is not enough time for seed set.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Many Dianthus species occur as common wildflowers. There has never been any evidence of hybridization between carnation and these species, nor after decades of cultivation have carnations been found in the wild. The biology of carnation is such that there are no realistic ways for the genetically modified plants to escape from cultivation and become established as populations in the wild, or for gene dispersal from the genetically modified carnation to occur.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Genetically modified carnation line 66 and derived lines have little potential to become weeds. After decades of cultivation, carnations have never been found in the wild. Carnation has no weedy characteristics and is not closely related to known weeds.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The risk of transferring genetic traits from transgenic carnation line 66 to species in unmanaged environments was not judged to be significant. The genetically modified carnation line 66 is intended for cultivation by cut flower growers, flower auctions, flower wholesalers, retailers and breeders. Plants are sold as flowers, cuttings or whole plants.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:37:01'),
(13, 13, '<p><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p>The male sterile maize line MS3 has been tested in the major maize growing regions of the United States since 1992 and has been extensively evaluated in the laboratory, greenhouse, and field experiments. Agronomic characteristics such as seed germination, vegetative vigour, time to maturity, time to tassel emergence, time to and process of silk extrusion, male and female fertility, yield parameters, disease and pest susceptibilities were compared to those of non-transgenic <i>Zea mays</i> counterparts and found to be within the normal range for commercial maize hybrids. Overall the field data reports and data on agronomic traits demonstrated that MS3 maize was as safe to grow as any other male sterile maize and had no potential to pose a plant pest risk.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Multiple barriers, including sterility of the maize line MS3 ensured that gene introgression from these transformed lines into wild or cultivated sexually-compatible plants was extremely unlikely and such rare events would not increase the weediness potential of any resulting progeny or adversely impact biodiversity.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In the United States and Canada, where there are few plant species closely-related to maize in the wild, the risk of gene flow to other species is remote. Cultivated maize, <i>Zea mays</i> L. subsp. mays, is sexually compatible with other members of the genus Zea, and to a much lesser degree with members of the genus Tripsacum.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was determined that the relevant introduced trait, male sterility, was unlikely to increase weediness of maize line MS3. There was no indication that the presence of the RNAse enzyme would convert maize into a weed. As well, resistance to glufosinate ammonium would not, in itself, render maize weedy or invasive of natural habitats.<br />\nCultivated maize is unlikely to establish in non-cropped habitats and there have been no reports of maize surviving as a weed. In agriculture, maize volunteers are not uncommon but are easily controlled by mechanical means or by using herbicides, other than glufosinate ammonium. <i>Zea mays</i> is not invasive and is a weak competitor with very limited seed dispersal.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was determined that genetically modified maize line MS3 did not have a significant adverse impact on organisms beneficial to plants or agriculture, nontarget organisms, and was not expected to impact on threatened or endangered species. The PAT enzyme responsible for glufosinate ammonium tolerance has no toxic or pathogenic properties; it has very specific enzymatic activity, does not possess proteolytic or heat stability typical of toxic compounds, and does not affect the metabolism of the plant.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversit</b>y</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Maize line MS3 has no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend the use beyond the current geographic range of maize production. Since the risk of outcrossing with wild relatives in the United States and Canada is remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits from these maize lines to species in unmanaged environments was not a significant concern. It was determined that the relative impact on plant biodiversity was neutral, as was the impact on animal and microbe biodiversity since the introduced genes were not expected to alter the plant&#39;s metabolism and as such, novel compounds would not be produced.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 21:59:45'),
(14, 27, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic canola lines MS8, RF3, and derived hybrids, have been extensively field tested in Canada (1994 to 1996), in the United States since 1997 and in Europe. Important agronomic characteristics such as germination, vegetative vigour, flowering period, time to maturity and seed production of both transgenic lines were within the normal range of expression of characteristics in unmodified <i>B. napus</i> counterparts. Flowers of the MS8 line had undeveloped anthers, slightly smaller petals and did not produce fertile pollen, but nectar production remained unchanged and normal insect pollination was observed. Stress adaptation was evaluated, including its resistance or susceptibility to major <i>B. napus</i> pests and pathogens (<i>e.g.</i>, blackleg, sclerotinia, flea beetles, diamondback moth larvae) and determined to fall within the ranges currently displayed by commercial varieties. The lines were tested under various environmental conditions, and showed no differences in agronomic performance when compared to unmodified counterparts under the same conditions. Overall the field data reports demonstrated that MS8 and RF3, and the hybrid MS8 x RF3 had no potential to pose a plant pest risk.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The sterility of the <i>B. napus</i> line MS8 ensured that gene introgression from MS8 into wild or cultivated sexually-compatible plants was extremely unlikely. The MS8 plants can act as pollen recipients, but the progeny would be partially male sterile.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Transgenic line RF3 and hybrid plants displayed normal reproductive characteristics. <i>Brassica napus</i> plants are known to outcross up to 30% with other plants of the same species, and potentially with plants of related species <i>B. rapa</i>, <i>B. juncea</i>, <i>B. carinata</i>, <i>B. nigra</i>, <i>Diplotaxis muralis</i>, <i>Raphanus raphanistrum</i>, and E<i>rucastrum gallicum</i>. Previous studies have demonstrated that gene flow is most likely to occur with <i>B. rapa</i>, the other major canola species, and an occasional weed of cultivated land especially in the eastern provinces of Canada.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The genes coding for male sterility or fertility restoration do not confer any ecological advantage to potential hybrid offspring of MS8 or RF3 plants. If glufosinate ammonium tolerant individuals arose through interspecific or intergeneric hybridization, the novel traits would confer no competitive advantage to these plants unless these populations were routinely subject to herbicide treatments. In the event that a glufosinate ammonium tolerant <i>B. napus</i> survived, these herbicide-tolerant individuals would be easily controlled using mechanical and other available chemical means. It was concluded that gene flow from the transgenic lines MS8 and RF3 or their hybrids to canola relatives was possible, but would not result in increased weediness or invasiveness of these relatives.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Field studies on invasiveness and survival characteristics comparing the MS8, RF3 and hybrid MS8 x RF3 to unmodified plants determined that the transgenic lines were not different from their counterparts in these respects. It was determined that glufosinate ammonium did not confer a competitive advantage to the transgenic lines over unmodified varieties since herbicide resistance does not confer any pest resistance, alter reproductive biology or change any physiology related to survival. It was concluded that the traits controlling pollination in MS8, RF3 and their hybrid progeny had no altered weed or invasiveness potential compared to currently commercialized <i>B. napus</i> varieties and in fact, male sterility trait in MS8 would provide a competitive disadvantage.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was determined that genetically modified lines MS8, RF3, and hybrid MS8 x RF3 did not have a significant adverse impact on organisms beneficial to plants or agriculture, nontarget organisms, and were not expected to impact on threatened or endangered species. The barnase and barstar proteins did not result in altered toxicity or allergenicity properties and are only produced in the tapetum cell layer of anthers at a specific developmental stage.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic lines MS8, RF3 and their hybrids have no novel phenotypic characteristics which would extend their use beyond the current geographic range of canola/rapeseed production. Since outcross species are only found in disturbed habitats, transfer of novel traits would not have an impact on unmanaged natural environments. It was determined that the relative impact on biodiversity of MS8, RF3 and MS8 x RF3 was equivalent to that of currently commercialized canola lines.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 22:34:50'),
(15, 50, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The maize lines 676, 678, and 680 have been field tested in the major maize growing regions of the United States since 1995. Field data regarding seed germination rates, yield characteristics, disease and pest susceptibilities, compositional analyses, and numerous other reports supported that conclusion that maize lines 676, 678, and 680 were as safe to grow as any other male sterile maize and would not present a plant pest risk.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Multiple barriers, including sterility of the maize lines 676, 678, and 680, ensured that gene introgression from these transformed lines into wild or cultivated sexually-compatible plants was extremely unlikely and such rare events would not increase the weediness potential of any resulting progeny or adversely impact biodiversity.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In the United States, where there are few plant species closely-related to maize in the wild, the risk of gene flow to other species is remote. Cultivated maize, <i>Zea mays</i> L. subsp. mays, is sexually compatible with other members of the genus Zea, and to a much lesser degree with members of the genus Tripsacum.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was determined that the relevant introduced trait, male sterility, was unlikely to increase weediness of maize lines 676, 678, and 680. There was no indication that the presence of a specific DNA adenine methylase enzyme, would convert maize into a weed. As well, resistance to glufosinate ammonium would not, in itself, render maize weedy or invasive of natural habitats.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cultivated maize is unlikely to establish in non-cropped habitats and there have been no reports of maize surviving as a weed. In agriculture, maize volunteers are not uncommon but are easily controlled by mechanical means or by using herbicides, other than glufosinate ammonium. <i>Zea mays</i> is not invasive and is a weak competitor with very limited seed dispersal.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was determined that genetically modified maize lines 676, 678, and 680 did not have a significant adverse impact on organisms beneficial to plants or agriculture, nontarget organisms, and were not expected to impact on threatened or endangered species. Analysis of maize lines 676, 678, and 680 identified no toxic components present in concentrations significantly different from concentrations in nontransgenic maize. Furthermore, the genetic modification in maize lines 676, 678, and 680 did not result in the production of new proteins, enzymes, or metabolites, in the plant, known to have toxic properties, and plants did not exhibit any pathogenic properties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Maize lines 676, 678, and 680 have no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend their use beyond the current geographic range of maize production. Since the risk of outcrossing with wild relatives in the United States is remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits from these maize lines to species in unmanaged environments was insignificant. It was determined that the relative impact on plant biodiversity was neutral, as was the impact on animal and microbe biodiversity since the introduced genes were not expected to alter the plant&#39;s metabolism and as such, novel compounds would not be produced.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:12:59'),
(16, 17, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Field testing of DK404SR maize hybrids demonstrated that agronomic characteristics such as: plant size and vigour, growth, male and female fertility, time to maturity, flowering period, and seed yield, were within the range of values displayed by currently commercialized hybrids. It was determined that the growing habit of the modified maize plants was not inadvertently altered and that DK404SR maize hybrids did not display any altered pest potential.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Since pollen production and viability were unchanged by the genetic modification resulting in maize hybrid DK404SR, pollen dispersal by wind and outcrossing frequency should be no different than for other maize hybrids. Gene exchange between DK404SR and other cultivated maize hybrids will be similar to that which occurs naturally between cultivated maize varieties at the present time. In Canada, where there are no plant species closely-related to maize in the wild, the risk of gene flow to other species is remote. Cultivated maize, <i>Zea mays</i> L. subsp. mays, is sexually compatible with other members of the genus Zea, and to a much lesser degree with members of the genus Tripsacum. However, none of the sexually compatible relatives of maize in Canada are considered to be weeds in Canada, and it is therefore unlikely that introgression of the modified ACCase gene would provide a selective advantage to these populations as they would not be routinely subject to herbicide treatments.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to maize line DK404SR, other than that conferred by resistance to sethoxydim herbicide. Resistance to Poast&reg; herbicide will not, in itself, render maize weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics were modified.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cultivated maize is unlikely to establish in non-cropped habitats and there have been no reports of maize surviving as a weed. In agriculture, maize volunteers are not uncommon but are easily controlled by mechanical or by using herbicides that are not based on sethoxydim as appropriate. <i>Zea mays</i> is not invasive and is a weak competitor with very limited seed dispersal.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The novel trait present in the maize hybrid DK404SR was a mutation within a single corn enzyme, that altered the sethoxydim binding site without modification of metabolic abilities. Therefore, the potential toxicity of the ACCase enzyme was not a concern. It was determined that the maize hybrid DK404SR would not result in altered impacts on interacting organisms, including humans, compared with currently commercialized counterparts.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Maize hybrid DK404SR has no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of maize production. Since the risk of outcrossing with wild relatives in Canada is remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits from DK404SR to species in unmanaged environments was insignificant.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 22:09:15'),
(17, 48, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The maize line DLL25 was field tested in the major maize growing regions of the United States starting in 1991, in Canada since 1994, and in Argentina. DLL25 has been evaluated extensively in the laboratory, greenhouse, and field experiments. The transgenic maize was compared to non-transgenic counterparts for agronomic characteristics including test weight, dropped ears, stalk lodging, barrenness, stay green, seedling vigour, plant height, ear height, growing day units to 50% pollen shed, growing degree day units to 50% silk emergence, silk delay, green snap, maturity, yield, grain moisture, disease and insect susceptibilities. Field data determined that vegetative vigour, flowering period, time to maturity, seed production, and disease and insect susceptibilities were within the normal range of expression currently displayed by commercial maize hybrids. Overall the field data reports and data on agronomic traits showed that maize line DLL25 had no potential to pose a plant pest risk.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Since pollen production and viability were unchanged by the genetic modification resulting in maize line DLL25, pollen dispersal by wind and outcrossing frequency should be no different than for other maize varieties. Gene exchange between maize line DLL25 and other cultivated maize varieties will be similar to that which occurs naturally between cultivated maize varieties at the present time. In the United States and Canada, where there are few plant species closely-related to maize in the wild, the risk of gene flow to other species is remote. Cultivated maize, <i>Zea mays</i> L. subsp. mays, is sexually compatible with other members of the genus Zea, and to a much lesser degree with members of the genus Tripsacum.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to maize line DLL25 other than that conferred by resistance to glufosinate ammonium herbicides. Resistance to glufosinate ammonium will not, in itself, render maize weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics were modified.<br />\nCultivated maize is unlikely to establish in non-cropped habitats and there have been no reports of maize surviving as a weed. In agriculture, maize volunteers are not uncommon but are easily controlled by mechanical means or by using herbicides, other than glufosinate ammonium. <i>Zea mays</i> is not invasive and is a weak competitor with very limited seed dispersal.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was determined that genetically modified maize line DLL25 did not have a significant adverse impact on organisms beneficial to plants or agriculture, or nontarget organisms, and was not expected to impact on threatened or endangered species. The PAT enzyme responsible for glufosinate ammonium tolerance does not possess mammalian toxicity. The PAT enzyme has a very specific enzymatic activity, does not possess proteolytic or heat stability typical of toxic compounds, and does not affect the metabolism of the plant.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">DLL25 has no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of maize production. Since the risk of outcrossing with wild relatives in the United States and Canada is remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits from DLL25 maize lines to species in unmanaged environments was not a significant concern. It was determined that the overall relative impact on plant biodiversity was neutral, as was the impact on animal and microbe biodiversity since the introduced PAT enzyme was not expected to alter the plant&#39;s metabolism and as such, novel compounds would not be produced.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:08:10');
INSERT INTO `gmcropdatabase_events_esafeties` (`id`, `eventId`, `description`, `created`, `updated`) VALUES
(18, 18, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The canola lines 23-198 and 23-18-17 were field tested in the United States (1991-1992) and Canada (1993 to 1995). Agronomic and adaptation characteristics such as seed germination, seed yield, seedling growth, flowering and maturity dates, were within the normal range of expression of characteristics in unmodified counterparts. The laurate canola lines were generally taller, later maturing and lower yielding, reflecting characteristics of the parent line 212/86. Disease incidence (<i>i.e.</i> stem rot, blackleg, black spot, black rot, powdery mildew, gray stem, damping off, turnip mosaic, cauliflower mosaic, crown gall) and insect susceptibilities (flea beetles and aphids) were monitored during field trials and in greenhouses and were shown to the same as those of unmodified counterparts. The only significant consistent difference between high laurate canola and the parent variety was the increase in laurate content from less than 0.1% to greater than 10%. The high laurate <i>B. napus</i> lines are grown under contract to preserve their identity and prevent mixing with conventional canola. Overall the field data reports demonstrated that canola lines 23-198 and 23-18-17 had no potential to pose a plant pest risk.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>B. napus</i> plants, including lines 23-198 and 23-18-17, are known to outcross up to 30% with other plants of the same species, and potentially with plants of related species <i>B. rapa</i>, <i>B. juncea</i>, <i>B. carinata</i>, <i>B. nigra</i>, <i>Diplotaxis muralis</i>, <i>Raphanus raphanistrum</i>, and <i>Erucastrum gallicum</i>. Previous studies have demonstrated that gene flow is most likely to occur with <i>B. rapa</i>. Other studies concluded that transgenic canola was not any more aggressive than nontransgenic canola, was not invasive of undisturbed habitats, and did not persist in the environment into which it was introduced. It was concluded that gene flow from the transgenic lines 23-198 and 23-18-17 to canola relatives was possible, but would not result in increased weediness or invasiveness of these relatives.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The introduced trait, laurate content, was determined to be extremely unlikely to increase weediness of canola lines 23-198 and 23-18-17. It was determined that the increased levels of lauric acid did not confer a competitive advantage to canola lines 23-198 and 23-18-17 over non-transgenic varieties since the novel trait did not confer any pest resistance, alter reproductive biology or change any physiology related to survival. Other studies on fitness characteristics determined that there was no obvious increase in volunteers from seed, increase in seed dormancy, or other variations indicative of increased weediness.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was determined that there was no reason to believe that deleterious effects or significant impacts on nontarget organisms, including beneficial organisms, would result from the cultivation of high laurate canola. Neither lauric acid, nor the gene that produces increased laurate, nor the gene for aminoglycoside resistance were found to have any toxic or allergenic properties. Both Bay TE and NPTII enzymes are ubiquitous in nature and no adverse effects have been reported to be associated with either enzyme.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Canola lines 23-18-17 and 23-198 have no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend their use beyond the current geographic range of canola production. Since outcross species are only found in disturbed habitats, transfer of novel traits would not impact unmanaged environments. It was concluded that the potential impact on biodiversity of high laurate canola lines was equivalent to that of currently commercialized canola lines.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 22:12:48'),
(19, 22, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The canola line HCN92 was field tested in Canada from 1990 to 1994. Agronomic and adaptation characteristics such as vegetative vigour, seed production and dormancy were within the normal range of expression of characteristics in unmodified counterparts. Seed morphology and average seed weight did not change, indicating that seed dispersal potential was not altered. Stress adaptation was evaluated, including resistance to major <i>B. napus</i> pests and pathogens (<i>e.g.</i>, blackleg, sclerotinia, flea beetles) and determined to fall within the ranges currently displayed by commercial varieties. The only significant difference between HCN92 canola and the parental non-transformed variety was its resistance to glufosinate ammonium. Overall the field data reports demonstrated that canola HCN92 has no potential to pose a plant pest risk.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>B. napus</i> plants, including HCN92, are known to outcross up to 30% with other plants of the same species, and potentially with plants of related species <i>B. rapa</i>, <i>B. juncea</i>, <i>B. carinata</i>, <i>B. nigra</i>, <i>Diplotaxis muralis</i>, <i>Raphanus raphanistrum</i>, and <i>Erucastrum gallicum</i>. Previous studies have demonstrated that gene flow is most likely to occur with <i>B. rapa</i>.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The genes coding for glufosinate ammonium and aminoglycoside resistance were not expected to confer an ecological advantage to potential hybrid offspring. If glufosinate ammonium-tolerant individuals arose through interspecific or intergeneric hybridization, the novel traits would confer no competitive advantage to these plants unless challenged by glufosinate ammonium. This may occur in managed ecosystems where glufosinate ammonium was applied for broad spectrum weed control, or when used to control weeds in plant varieties developed for tolerance to Liberty&reg;. In the event that a glufosinate ammonium tolerant <i>B. napus</i> survived, these herbicide-tolerant individuals would be easily controlled using mechanical and other available chemical means. The use of good crop management practices should prevent the occurrence of persistent resistant hybrids. It was concluded that gene flow from the transgenic line HCN92 to canola relatives was possible, but would not result in increased weediness or invasiveness of these relatives.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was determined that genetically modified canola line HCN92 did not have a significant adverse impact on organisms beneficial to plants or agriculture, nontarget organisms, and was not expected to impact on threatened or endangered species. For example, studies on honey bees foraging in HCN92 and observations on brood development determined that there were no negative impacts on bees. Plant residue studies were conducted to determine whether successive crops were affected by residues from transgenic HCN92. Results indicated that there were no differences between HCN92 and unmodified canola, indirectly demonstrating that soil bacteria were not negatively affected by plant residues from HCN92. Overall, the PAT enzyme responsible for glufosinate ammonium tolerance has very specific enzymatic activity, does not possess proteolytic or heat stability typical of toxic compounds, and does not affect the metabolism of the plant. Both the PAT enzyme and NPTII proteins are ubiquitous in nature and no adverse effects have been reported to be associated with either enzyme.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">HCN92 has no novel phenotypic characteristics which would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of canola production. Since outcross species are only found in disturbed habitats, transfer of novel traits would not impact unmanaged environments. Studies demonstrated that HCN92 was not invasive of natural habitats, and that it was no more competitive than its unmodified counterparts, both in natural and managed ecosystems. It was concluded that the potential impact on biodiversity of HCN92 was equivalent to that of currently commercialized canola lines.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 22:25:15'),
(20, 19, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The canola line GT200 was field tested in Canada (1992-1994). Agronomic characteristics such as vegetative vigor, overwintering capacity, time to maturity, seed production and yield of the transformed line GT200 were compared to unmodified canola counterparts and determined to be within the normal range of expression found in commercial canola cultivars. Stress adaptation was evaluated, including resistance to major <i>B. napus</i> pests such as the fungal pathogen <i>Leptosphaeria maculans</i> (blackleg) and the susceptibility of GT200 was within the ranges currently displayed by commercial varieties. The only significant difference between GT200 canola and the parental non-transformed variety was tolerance to glyphosate. Overall the field data reports demonstrated that canola GT200 had no potential to pose a plant pest risk.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Transgenic canola line GT200 displayed normal reproductive characteristics. <i>B. napus</i> plants are known to outcross up to 30% with other plants of the same species, and potentially with plants of related species <i>B. rapa</i>, <i>B. juncea</i>, <i>B. carinata</i>, <i>B. nigra</i>, <i>Diplotaxis muralis</i>, <i>Raphanus raphanistrum</i>, and <i>Erucastrum gallicum</i>. Previous studies have demonstrated that gene flow is most likely to occur with <i>B. rapa</i>.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The genes coding for glyphosate tolerance, CP4 EPSPS and <i>gox</i> are not expected to confer an ecological advantage to potential hybrid offspring. If glyphosate tolerant individuals arose through interspecific or intergeneric hybridization, the novel trait would confer no competitive advantage to these plants unless these populations were routinely subject to herbicide treatments. This may occur in managed ecosystems where glyphosate herbicide Roundup&reg; was applied for broad spectrum weed control, or when used to control weeds in plant varieties developed for tolerance to Roundup&reg;. In the event that a glyphosate tolerant plant survived, the herbicide-tolerant individual would be easily controlled using mechanical and other available chemical means. It was concluded that gene flow from the transgenic line GT200 to canola relatives was possible, but would not result in increased weediness or invasiveness of these relatives.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to GT200 canola, other than that conferred by resistance to glyphosate herbicides. Resistance to glyphosate did not confer any pest resistance, alter reproductive biology or change any physiology related to survival. Volunteer glyphosate tolerant plants would be easily managed using mechanical or alternative herbicides with different modes of action. It was concluded that GT200 canola had no altered weed or invasiveness potential compared to currently commercialized <i>B. napus</i> varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was determined that genetically modified canola line GT200 did not have a significant adverse impact on organisms beneficial to plants or agriculture, nontarget organisms, and were not expected to impact on threatened or endangered species. The novel proteins CP4 EPSPS and GOX expressed in GT200 did not result in altered toxicity or allergenicity properties as determined from studies using simulated digestive fluids, nutritional composition and amino acid sequence homology studies.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic canola line GT200 has no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of canola/rapeseed production. Since outcross species are only found in agricultural ecosystems, transfer of novel traits would not have an impact on unmanaged environments. It was determined that the relative impact on biodiversity of GT200 was equivalent to that of currently commercialized canola lines.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 22:15:20'),
(21, 32, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The canola line HCN28 (derived from T45) was field tested in Canada (1993 - 1995), in the United States (1996, 1997) and in Chile, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Agronomic characteristics such as cotyledon width, pod and leaf length, flowering period, time to maturity, plant height, lodging score, seed yield and thousand seed weight were compared to unmodified canola. Stress adaptation was evaluated, including resistance to major <i>B. napus</i> pests such as white rust (<i>Albugo candida</i>) and blackleg (<i>Leptosphaeria maculens</i>) and determined to fall within the ranges currently displayed by commercial varieties. The only significant difference between HCN28 canola and the parental non-transformed variety was its resistance to glufosinate ammonium. Overall the field data reports demonstrated that canola HCN28 has no potential to pose a plant pest risk.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Brassica napus</i> plants, including HCN28, are known to outcross up to 30% with other plants of the same species. Potential gene movement may occur at low levels with plants of related species such as <i>B. rapa</i> and <i>B. juncea</i> and at extremely low levels with <i>B. carinata</i>, <i>B. nigra</i>, <i>Diplotaxis muralis</i>, <i>Raphanus raphanistrum</i>, and <i>Erucastrum gallicum</i>. Previous studies showed that introgression of the herbicide tolerance gene was most likely to occur with <i>B. rapa</i>.<br />\nIncorporation of the <i>pat</i> gene was not expected to confer an ecological advantage to potential hybrid offspring. If glufosinate ammonium-tolerant individuals arose through interspecific or intergeneric hybridization, the novel traits would confer no competitive advantage to these plants unless challenged by glufosinate ammonium. This may occur in managed ecosystems where glufosinate ammonium was applied for broad spectrum weed control, or when used to control weeds in plant varieties developed for tolerance to Liberty&reg;. In the event that a glufosinate ammonium tolerant <i>B. napus</i> survived, these herbicide-tolerant individuals would be easily controlled using mechanical and other available chemical means. The use of good crop management practices should prevent the occurrence of persistent resistant hybrids. It was concluded that gene flow from the transgenic line HCN28 to canola relatives was possible, but would not result in increased weediness or invasiveness of these relatives.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was determined that genetically modified canola line HCN28 did not have a significant adverse impact on organisms beneficial to plants or agriculture, nontarget organisms, and was not expected to impact on threatened or endangered species. The PAT enzyme responsible for glufosinate ammonium tolerance is ubiquitous in nature and there have been no adverse effects, toxic or allergenic, ever reported.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">HCN28 has no novel phenotypic characteristics which would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of canola production. Since outcross species are only found in disturbed habitats, transfer of novel traits would not impact unmanaged environments. It was concluded that the potential impact on biodiversity of HCN28 was equivalent to that of currently commercialized canola lines.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 22:47:06'),
(22, 26, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The canola lines MS1 and RF1, and the hybrid MS1 x RF1 were field tested in Canada from 1991 to 1994. Agronomic and adaptation characteristics such as vegetative vigour, overwintering capacity, flowering period, seed production, seed dissemination, germination and establishment, and seed dormancy were within the normal range of expression of characteristics in unmodified counterparts. As expected, seed production of the hybrid line was greater than that of unmodified counterparts. Flowers of the MS1 line had undeveloped anthers, slightly smaller petals and did not produce fertile pollen, but nectar production remained unchanged and normal insect pollination was observed. Stress adaptation was evaluated, including its resistance or susceptibility to major <i>B. napus</i> pests and pathogens (<i>e.g.</i>, blackleg, sclerotinia, flea beetles, diamondback moth larvae) and determined to fall within the ranges currently displayed by commercial varieties. The lines were tested under various environmental conditions, and showed no differences in agronomic performance when compared to unmodified counterparts under the same conditions. Overall the field data reports demonstrated that MS1 and RF1, and the hybrid MS1 x RF1 had no potential to pose a plant pest risk.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The sterility of the <i>B. napus</i> line MS1 ensured that gene introgression from MS1 into wild or cultivated sexually-compatible plants was extremely unlikely. The MS1 plants can act as pollen recipients, but the progeny would be partially male sterile.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Transgenic line RF1 and hybrid plants displayed normal reproductive characteristics. <i>Brassica napus</i> plants are known to outcross up to 30% with other plants of the same species, and potentially with plants of related species <i>B. rapa</i>, <i>B. juncea</i>, <i>B. carinata</i>, <i>B. nigra</i>, <i>Diplotaxis muralis</i>, <i>Raphanus raphanistrum</i>, and <i>Erucastrum gallicum</i>. Previous studies have demonstrated that gene flow is most likely to occur with <i>B. rapa</i>.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The genes coding for male sterility or fertility restoration do not confer any ecological advantage to potential hybrid offspring of MS1 or RF1 plants. If glufosinate ammonium tolerant individuals arose through interspecific or intergeneric hybridization, the novel traits would confer no competitive advantage to these plants unless these populations were routinely subject to herbicide treatments. In the event that a glufosinate ammonium tolerant <i>B. napus</i> survived, these herbicide-tolerant individuals would be easily controlled using mechanical and other available chemical means. It was concluded that gene flow from the transgenic lines MS1 and RF1 or their hybrids to canola relatives was possible, but would not result in increased weediness or invasiveness of these relatives.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Field studies on invasiveness and survival characteristics comparing the MS1, RF1 and hybrid MS1xRF1 to unmodified plants determined that the transgenic lines were not different from their counterparts in this respect. Published data showed that seed survival of transgenic seeds expressing kanamycin resistance and glufosinate ammonium tolerance was significantly lower than seed survival of unmodified counterparts, when seeded under a variety of wild conditions. Competition studies, between transgenic lines and barley sown together at various ratios, demonstrated that the transgenic lines did not confer any novel competitive advantage.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was determined that genetically modified lines MS1, RF1, and hybrid MS1 x RF1 did not have a significant adverse impact on nontarget organisms or organisms beneficial to plants or agriculture, and were not expected to impact on threatened or endangered species. The <i>barnase</i> and <i>barstar</i> proteins did not result in altered toxicity or allergenicity properties and are only produced in the tapetum cell layer of anthers at a specific developmental stage. In addition, detailed studies of pollination behavior in the field and in greenhouses showed no effects on honeybees. An avian dietary test was performed with the seed eating canary bird (<i>Serinus canaria domestica</i>) and a feeding study was performed with the domesticated rabbit (<i>Oryctolagus cuniculus</i>). Both studies determined no differences in food consumption, behavior and body weight between birds or rabbits fed with the transgenics or unmodified counterparts. Microorganisms living in the rhizosphere surrounding the roots were compared quantitatively and qualitatively and there were no differences observed between plots of transgenic plants versus plots containing unmodified <i>B. napus</i>.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic lines MS1, RF1 and their hybrids have no novel phenotypic characteristics which would extend their use beyond the current geographic range of canola/rapeseed production. Since outcross species are only found in disturbed habitats, transfer of novel traits would not have an impact on unmanaged environments. Studies have shown that these lines are not invasive of natural habitats and that they are no more competitive than the unmodified counterparts, both in natural and managed ecosystems. It was determined that the relative impact on biodiversity of MS1, RF1 and MS1xRF1 was equivalent to that of currently commercialized canola lines.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 22:32:39'),
(23, 65, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The canola lines MS1 and RF2, and the hybrid MS1 x RF2 were field tested in Canada from 1991 to 1994. Agronomic and adaptation characteristics such as vegetative vigour, overwintering capacity, flowering period, seed production, seed dissemination, germination and establishment, and seed dormancy were within the normal range of expression of characteristics in unmodified counterparts. As expected, seed production of the hybrid line was greater than that of unmodified counterparts. Flowers of the MS1 line had undeveloped anthers, slightly smaller petals and did not produce fertile pollen, but nectar production remained unchanged and normal insect pollination was observed. Stress adaptation was evaluated, including its resistance or susceptibility to major <i>B. napus</i> pests and pathogens (<i>e.g.</i>, blackleg, sclerotinia, flea beetles, diamondback moth larvae) and determined to fall within the ranges currently displayed by commercial varieties. The lines were tested under various environmental conditions, and showed no differences in agronomic performance when compared to unmodified counterparts under the same conditions. Overall the field data reports demonstrated that MS1 and RF2, and the hybrid MS1 x RF2 had no potential to pose a plant pest risk.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The sterility of the <i>B. napus</i> line MS1 ensured that gene introgression from MS1 into wild or cultivated sexually-compatible plants was extremely unlikely. The MS1 plants can act as pollen recipients, but the progeny would be partially male sterile.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Transgenic line RF2 and hybrid plants displayed normal reproductive characteristics. <i>Brassica napus</i> plants are known to outcross up to 30% with other plants of the same species, and potentially with plants of related species <i>B. rapa</i>, <i>B. juncea</i>, <i>B. carinata</i>, <i>B. nigra</i>, <i>Diplotaxis muralis</i>, <i>Raphanus raphanistrum</i>, and <i>Erucastrum gallicum</i>. Previous studies have demonstrated that gene flow is most likely to occur with <i>B. rapa</i>.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The genes coding for male sterility or fertility restoration do not confer any ecological advantage to potential hybrid offspring of MS1 or RF2 plants. If glufosinate ammonium tolerant individuals arose through interspecific or intergeneric hybridization, the novel traits would confer no competitive advantage to these plants unless these populations were routinely subject to herbicide treatments. In the event that a glufosinate ammonium tolerant <i>B. napus</i> survived, these herbicide-tolerant individuals would be easily controlled using mechanical and other available chemical means. It was concluded that gene flow from the transgenic lines MS1 and RF2 or their hybrids to canola relatives was possible, but would not result in increased weediness or invasiveness of these relatives.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Field studies on invasiveness and survival characteristics comparing the MS1, RF2 and hybrid MS1xRF2 to unmodified plants determined that the transgenic lines were not different from their counterparts in this respect. Published data showed that seed survival of transgenic seeds expressing kanamycin resistance and glufosinate ammonium tolerance was significantly lower than seed survival of unmodified counterparts, when seeded under a variety of wild conditions. Competition studies, between transgenic lines and barley sown together at various ratios, demonstrated that the transgenic lines did not confer any novel competitive advantage.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was determined that genetically modified lines MS1, RF2, and hybrid MS1 x RF2 did not have a significant adverse impact on nontarget organisms or organisms beneficial to plants or agriculture, and were not expected to impact on threatened or endangered species. The <i>barnase</i> and <i>barstar</i> proteins did not result in altered toxicity or allergenicity properties and are only produced in the tapetum cell layer of anthers at a specific developmental stage. In addition, detailed studies of pollination behavior in the field and in greenhouses showed no effects on honeybees. An avian dietary test was performed with the seed eating canary bird (<i>Serinus canaria domestica</i>) and a feeding study was performed with the domesticated rabbit (<i>Oryctolagus cuniculus</i>). Both studies determined no differences in food consumption, behavior and body weight between birds or rabbits fed with the transgenics or unmodified counterparts. Microorganisms living in the rhizosphere surrounding the roots were compared quantitatively and qualitatively and there were no differences observed between plots of transgenic plants versus plots containing unmodified <i>B. napus</i>.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic lines MS1, RF2 and their hybrids have no novel phenotypic characteristics which would extend their use beyond the current geographic range of canola/rapeseed production. Since outcross species are only found in disturbed habitats, transfer of novel traits would not have an impact on unmanaged environments. Studies have shown that these lines are not invasive of natural habitats and that they are no more competitive than the unmodified counterparts, both in natural and managed ecosystems. It was determined that the relative impact on biodiversity of MS1, RF2 and MS1xRF2 was equivalent to that of currently commercialized canola lines.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:40:09'),
(24, 42, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Transgenic soybean line GU262 was field tested in the United States (1996-1998). Field trial reports from these tests demonstrated that the transformed soybean line did not exhibit weedy characteristics, and had no effect on nontarget organisms or the general environment.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Gene introgression from transformed soybean line GU262 was extremely unlikely as there are no relatives of cultivated soybean in the continental United States and soybean plants are almost completely self-pollinated.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The gene that confers tolerance to the herbicide, glufosinate, will not provide soybean line GU262 or their progeny with any measurable selective advantage over non-transformed soybean plants in their ability to disseminate or to become established in the environment. GU262 lines did not exhibit any increased weediness characteristics relative to that of traditional varieties or the unmodified parental line.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was concluded that soybean line GU262 would not have a significant adverse impact on organisms beneficial to plants or agriculture, nontarget organisms, or on any threatened or endangered species.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 22:59:25'),
(25, 21, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">GTS 40-3-2 soybean has been field tested in the United States (1991-1993), Canada (1992), Puerto Rico (1993), Argentina, and Costa Rica. Agronomic studies on seed yield, and visual observations on germination characteristics of seeds, final stands, disease and insect susceptibility supported the conclusion that soybean line GTS 40-3-2 was as safe to grow as other soybean varieties and had no potential to pose a plant pest risk.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Gene introgression from transformed soybean line GTS 40-3-2 was extremely unlikely as there are no relatives of cultivated soybean in the continental United States and Canada, and soybean plants are almost completely self-pollinated. Furthermore, the reproductive characteristics such as pollen production and viability were unchanged by the genetic modification resulting in GTS 40-3-2.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cultivated soybean, <i>Glycine max</i>, naturally hybridizes with the wild annual species <i>G. soja</i>. However, <i>G. soja</i> is only found naturally occurring in China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan and the former USSR, and is not naturalized in North America, although it may possibly be grown in research plots. It was concluded that the potential for transfer of the glyphosate tolerance trait from the transgenic line to soybean relatives through gene flow was negligible in managed ecosystems, and that there was no potential for transfer to wild species in Canada and the continental United States</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to GTS 40-3-2, other than that conferred by resistance to glyphosate herbicide. Resistance to glyphosate-containing herbicides will not, in itself, render soybean weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics were modified. In the unlikely event of the formation of a herbicide tolerant hybrid, there would be no competitive advantage conferred on any hybrid progeny in the absence of sustained glyphosate use. The glyphosate-tolerant plant could easily be controlled by mechanical means or by using herbicides that are not based on glyphosate. Cultivated soybean does not exhibit any weedy characteristics in the United States and Canada, although related species are reported as weeds in Japan and China. It was concluded that soybean line GTS 40-3-2 had no altered weed of invasiveness potential compared to commercial soybean varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Field observations of line GTS 40-3-2 revealed no negative effects on nontarget organisms, suggesting that the relatively higher levels of the protein in the transgenic plant tissues were not toxic to beneficial organisms. The novel protein CP4 EPSPS did not result in altered toxicity or allergenicity properties as demonstrated from studies including the acute oral mouse gavage study, the digestive fate study, and the fact that homologous EPSPS proteins are ubiquitous in nature and common in plants, fungi and microbes. Furthermore, the high specificity of the enzyme for its substrates makes it unlikely that the introduced enzyme would metabolize endogenous substrates to produce compounds toxic to beneficial organisms. It was determined that the genetically modified soybean line GTS 40-3-2 did not have a significant adverse impact on organisms beneficial to plants or agriculture, or on nontarget organisms, and was not expected to impact on threatened or endangered species.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">GTS 40-3-2 has no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of soybean production. Since there are no wild relatives of soybean in Canada and continental United States and since soybean is not an invasive species, the novel trait will not be transferred to unmanaged environments.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 22:22:36'),
(26, 41, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">High oleic soybean lines derived from sublines G94-1, G94-19 and G168 were field tested in the United States (1995-1996), Canada, Puerto Rico and Chile. Field test data concerning yields, visual observations of agronomic properties including susceptibility to diseases and insects indicated high oleic soybeans were within the range normally displayed by non-modified varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Gene introgression from transformed soybean sublines G94-1, G94-19 and G168 is extremely unlikely as there are no relatives of cultivated soybean in the continental United States and Canada, and soybean plants are almost completely self-pollinated. Furthermore, the reproductive characteristics such as pollen production and viability were unchanged by the genetic modification resulting in G94-1, G94-19 and G168.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cultivated soybean Glycine max naturally hybridizes with the wild annual species <i>G. soja</i>. Although <i>G. soja</i> is endemic to China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan and the former USSR it is not naturalized in North America, although it may possibly be grown in research plots. It was concluded that the potential for transfer of the high oleic acid from the transgenic sublines to soybean relatives through gene flow was negligible in managed ecosystems, and that there was no potential for transfer to wild species in Canada and continental United States.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to sublines G94-1, G94-19 and G168, other than that conferred by high levels of oleic acid in the seed. Non-modified soybean varieties do not show any special weediness characteristics and modifying the fatty acid composition only in the seeds would not be expected to have any effect on weediness, nor in any other way be harmful to the environment. It was concluded that soybean lines G94-1, G94-19 and G168 had no altered weed or invasiveness potential compared to commercial soybean varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Field observations of soybean sublines G94-1, G94-19 and G168 revealed no negative effects on nontarget organisms, suggesting that the relatively higher levels of the oleic acid in the tissues of these sublines are not toxic to organisms. Indirect metabolic alterations caused by the genetic modification were assessed and determined to have no impact on nontarget organisms. Furthermore, the lack of known toxicity of oleic acid suggests no potential for deleterious effects on beneficial organisms. It was determined that genetically modified soybean lines G94-1, G94-19 and G168 did not have a significant adverse impact on organisms beneficial to plants or agriculture, or on nontarget organisms, and were not expected to impact on threatened or endangered species.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Sublines G94-1, G94-19 and G168 have no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend their use beyond the current geographic range of soybean production. Since there are no wild relatives of soybean in Canada and the continental United States and since soybean is not an invasive species, the novel trait will not be transferred to plant species in unmanaged environments.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 22:57:51'),
(27, 60, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Transgenic soybean lines A2704-12, A2704-21, and A5547-35, were field tested in the United States (1990-1993) and line A2704-12 was field tested in Canada. Field trial reports from these tests demonstrated that the transformed lines did not exhibit weedy characteristics, and had no effect on nontarget organisms or the general environment.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Gene introgression from transformed soybean lines A2704-12, A2704-21, and A5547-35 was extremely unlikely as there are no relatives of cultivated soybean in the continental United States and Canada, and soybean plants are almost completely self-pollinated. Furthermore, the reproductive characteristics such as pollen production and viability were unchanged by the genetic modification resulting in A2704-12, A2704-21, and A5547-35.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cultivated soybean, <i>Glycine max</i>, naturally hybridizes with the wild annual species <i>G. soja</i>. Although <i>G. soja</i> is endemic to China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan and the former USSR it is not naturalized in North America, although it may possibly be grown in research plots. It was concluded that the potential for transfer of the herbicide tolerant trait from the transgenic lines to soybean relatives through gene flow was negligible in managed ecosystems, and that there was no potential for transfer to wild species in Canada and the continental United States.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to lines A2704-12, A2704-21, and A5547-35, other than that conferred by tolerance to glufosinate ammonium. Resistance to glufosinate ammonium will not, in itself, render soybean weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of its reproductive or growth characteristics have been modified. In the unlikely event of the formation of a herbicide tolerant hybrid, there would be no competitive advantage conferred on any hybrid progeny in the absence of sustained glufosinate ammonium use. The glufosinate ammonium tolerant plant would easily be controlled by mechanical means or by using alternative herbicides. Cultivated soybean is highly unlikely to establish in non-cropped habitats and there have been no reports of soybean surviving as a weed or exhibiting weed-like characteristics. It was concluded that soybean lines A2704-12, A2704-21, and A5547-35 had no altered weed or invasiveness potential compared to commericial soybean varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Field observations of soybean lines A2704-12, A2704-21, and A5547-35 concluded that they did not have a significant adverse impact on organisms beneficial to plants or agriculture, or on other nontarget organisms. These events were not expected to impact on threatened or endangered species as the PAT enzyme is not known to have any toxic properties. The high specificity of the enzyme for its substrates makes it unlikely that the introduced enzyme would metabolize endogenous substrates to produce compounds toxic to beneficial organisms.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Soybean lines A2704-12, A2704-21, and A5547-35 have no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend their use beyond the current geographic range of soybean production. Since there are no wild relatives of soybean in Canada and the continental United States and since soybean is not an invasive species, the novel trait will not be transferred to plant species in unmanaged environments.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:34:00'),
(28, 30, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic squash line ZW-20 was field tested at 46 sites in the United States between 1990 and 1993. Based on testing performed in the laboratory, greenhouse, and in research test plots, it was determined that the plants exhibited the typical agronomic characteristics of the parent crookneck squash, with the addition of resistance to ZYMV and WMV2 infection. The transgenic plants did not exhibit weedy characteristics and had no effect on nontarget organisms or the general environment.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Squash (<i>C. pepo</i>) and all other species of Cucurbita are monoecious (having both male and female flowers on the same plant) and produce heavy sticky pollen grains. Pollination requires an arthropod vector, usually a bee, to transmit the pollen from the staminate to the pistillate flower. Interspecific hybridization has been extensively investigated and is well understood in the four cultivated species of <i>C. pepo</i>: <i>C. mixta</i>, <i>C. moschata</i>, and <i>C. maxima</i>. It is reported that F1 hybrids can be obtained in breeding programs, but only with difficulty and such hybrids are usually sterile. There is no evidence of spontaneous hybridization among these four species despite that fact that they have been grown side by side under cultivation for many generations (Whitaker &amp; Robinson, 1986).</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Successful transmission of genetic material from CZW-3 squash via pollen is possible to a limited number of squash relatives (Wilson, 1993). In the United States, there exists two free-living subspecies of <i>C. pepo</i> that can cross with cultivated squash varieties without loss of fertility (designated as free-living <i>Cucuribita pepo</i> or FLCP). These include the free living gourds in many states including Texas (<i>C. pepo</i> ssp. ovifera var. texana) and free-living gourds in Illinois, Arkansas, and Oklahoma (<i>C. pepo</i> ssp. ovifera var. ozarkana.). FLCP plants have grown in proximity to new, improved cultivars of squash, and there have been no reports to suggest that disease resistance traits have introgressed into FLCP plants to produce hybrid populations that pose increased problems as weeds. Furthermore, field tests with hybrid plants derived from controlled crosses of ZW-20 with FLCP plants indicate that FLCP x ZW-20 hybrids do not appear to be strong competitors when growing in fields that have not been tilled to remove competing wild plants.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Natural populations of FLCP appear to be largely free of infection by ZYMV and WMV2, suggesting that resistance to ZYMV and WMV2 would not provide any selective advantage. Should the virus resistance genes from ZW-20 transfer to FLCP plants, the selective pressure to maintain the virus resistance in natural populations of FLCP plants should be minimal, as all evidence supports the conclusion that FLCP populations are not under significant environmental stress from viral infection.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic squash line ZW-20 was not likely to present a plant pest risk as a weed. The parent plant, yellow crookneck squash, is an agricultural crop plant that exhibits no appreciable weedy characteristics. In general there are no reports of squash to be a common or troublesome weed anywhere in the United States (Bridges &amp; Baumann, 1992). Squash volunteers are not uncommon in areas next to production fields, but they do not readily establish feral or free-living populations. Volunteers are controlled by mechanical means or herbicides.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">There are no indications that resistance to ZYMV and WMV2 would result in ZW-20 squash becoming a weed. Plant characteristics that may increase their weediness potential were observed and reports indicated that ZW-20 squash retained the agronomic characteristics of the parental line. There were no major changes in seed germination, cucurbitin levels, seed set viability, susceptibility or resistance to pathogens or insects (except ZYMV and WMV2), and there were no differences in overwintering survivability between ZW-20 squash and nontransgenic squash. It was concluded that ZW-20 was unlikely to increase the weediness of yellow crookneck squash and was no more likely to become a weed than virus-resistant plants.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No direct pathogenic properties, nor any hypothetical mechanisms for pathogenesis toward beneficial organisms, such as bees and earthworms, were identified for ZW-20 squash. The coat proteins expressed in ZW-20 squash are not known to have any toxic properties. In fact, these viral coat proteins are routinely ingested by virtually all animals, including humans, when squash is consumed. Naturally occurring infections of susceptible squash varieties result in concentrations of coat proteins far higher than those that occur in the tissues of the ZW-20 squash. It was concluded that the genes inserted into the transgenic squash line ZW-20 would not result in any deleterious effects or significant impacts on nontarget organisms, including threatened and endangered species or beneficial organisms.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The squash line ZW-20 had no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of squash production. The impact of cultivation of ZW-20 squash on biodiversity was likely to be comparable to that from non-transgenic varieties.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 22:40:51'),
(29, 40, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Transgenic soybean event A5447-127 was field tested in the United States (1996-1997). Field trial reports from these tests demonstrated that the transformed line had no deleterious effects on plants, did not exhibit weedy characteristics, and had no effect on nontarget organisms or the general environment.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Gene introgression from transformed soybean A5547-127 lines was extremely unlikely as there are no relatives of cultivated soybean in the continental United States and soybean plants are almost completely self-pollinated.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The gene that confers tolerance to the herbicide, glufosinate, will not provide soybean line A5547-127 or its progeny, with any measurable selective advantage over nontransformed soybean plants in their ability to disseminate or to become established in the environment. A5547-127 derived lines did not exhibit any increased weediness characteristics relative to that of traditional varieties or the unmodified parental lines.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was concluded that soybean line A5547-127 or its progeny, would not have a significant adverse impact on organisms beneficial to plants or agriculture, nontarget organisms, or on any threatened or endangered species.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 22:56:08');
INSERT INTO `gmcropdatabase_events_esafeties` (`id`, `eventId`, `description`, `created`, `updated`) VALUES
(30, 39, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Transgenic soybean lines W62 and W98 were field tested in the United States from 1990-1993 and field trial reports from these tests demonstrated that the transformed lines did not exhibit weedy characteristics, and had no effect on nontarget organisms or the general environment.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Gene introgression from transformed soybean lines W62 and W98 was extremely unlikely as there are no relatives of cultivated soybean in the continental United States and Canada, and soybean plants are almost completely self-pollinated. Furthermore, the reproductive characteristics such as pollen production and viability were unchanged by the genetic modification resulting in W62 and W98.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cultivated soybean, <i>Glycine max</i>, naturally hybridizes with the wild annual species <i>G. soja</i>. Although <i>G. soja</i> is native to China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan and the former USSR it is not naturalized in North America, although it may possibly be grown in research plots. It was concluded that the potential for transfer of the herbicide tolerant trait from the transgenic lines to soybean relatives through gene flow was negligible in managed ecosystems, and that there was no potential for transfer to wild species in Canada and continental United States.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to lines W62 and W98 other than that conferred by tolerance to glufosinate ammonium. Resistance to glufosinate ammonium will not, in itself, render soybean weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics were modified. In the unlikely event of the formation of a herbicide tolerant hybrid, there would be no competitive advantage conferred on any hybrid progeny in the absence of sustained glufosinate ammonium use. The glufosinate ammonium tolerant plant would easily be controlled by mechanical means or by using alternative herbicides. Cultivated soybean is highly unlikely to establish in non-cropped habitats and there have been no reports of soybean surviving as a weed or exhibiting weed-like characteristics. It was concluded that soybean lines W62 and W98, had no altered weed of invasiveness potential compared to commercial soybean varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Field observations of soybean lines W62 and W98 did not have a significant adverse impact on organisms beneficial to plants or agriculture, nontarget organisms, these events were not expected to impact on threatened or endangered species The PAT enzyme responsible for glufosinate ammonium tolerance that confers glufosinate resistance in transgenic soybean lines is normally not present in soybeans and is not known to have any toxic property. The lack of known toxicity for this enzyme suggests no potential for deleterious effects on beneficial organisms. The high specificity of the enzyme for its substrates makes it unlikely that the introduced enzyme would metabolize endogenous substrates to produce compounds toxic to beneficial organisms.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Soybean lines W62 and W98 have no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend their use beyond the current geographic range of soybean production. Since there are no wild relatives of soybean in Canada and continental United States and since soybean is not an invasive species, the novel trait will not be transferred to species in unmanaged environments.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 22:54:48'),
(31, 54, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Potato lines RBMT15-101, SEMT15-02 and SEMT15-15 were field tested in the United States (1994-1998) and Canada. Field evaluations determined that vegetative vigour, overwintering capacity, insect and disease resistance (except for resistance to CPB and PVY), tuber yield and quality characteristics remained unchanged in comparison to commercial varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In general, the natural exchange of genetic material from potato is only possible with other varieties of potato (<i>Solanum tuberosum</i>). Since the reproductive characteristics of these transgenic potato lines were unchanged by the genetic modification, they should be no different than the respective parent cultivars &#39;Russet Burbank&#39; and &#39;Shepody&#39;.<br />\nThe chances for successful hybridization between the transgenic potato lines and most wild relatives is extremely unlikely as potatoes are unsuccessful in forming natural hybrids with the native or introduced weeds of Solanum species that do not bear tubers. In Canada there are no tuber producing wild relatives of Solanum. In the United States, tuber-bearing Solanum species include <i>S. jamesii</i>, <i>S. fendleri</i>, and <i>S. pinnatisectum</i>. However, the possibility of gene introgression is excluded due to constraints of geographical isolation and other biological barriers to natural hybridization. No natural hybrids have been observed between these species and cultivated potatoes in the United States.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Field studies have shown that CPB and PVY resistance does not appear to be associated with increased weediness characteristics. Therefore, should CPB and PVY resistance genes be capable of introgression from these transgenic potatoes into wild species, the traits would be unlikely to provide a selective advantage sufficient to enable these hybrids to become serious weeds.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Resistance to CPB and PVY infection will not, in itself, render potatoes weedy or invasive of natural habitats, since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics have been modified. Field data reports indicated no obvious differences in traits likely to provide a selective advantage such as the number of volunteers, emergence from seed potatoes, and disease and insect susceptibility (other than to target pests, CPB and PVY). Traditional resistance genes for CPB and PVY, and resistance genes for other insect pests, have been identified in potatoes and other Solanum species with no reports of increased weediness potential.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Potatoes do not exhibit weediness characteristics and have difficulty becoming established outside cultivated fields. Small tubers left in the ground after harvest may give rise to volunteer plants in the next crop but are usually killed by frost or drought. Surviving volunteers can be controlled with herbicides and cultivation. Furthermore, seed dispersal is limited as dissemination is by tuber and seed. Outside of cultivated areas, seedlings grown from true seed do not compete successfully and are not reported as a weed pest.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was concluded that the genes inserted into the transgenic potato lines RBMT15-101, SEMT15-02 and SEMT15-15 would not result in any deleterious effects or significant impacts on nontarget organisms, including threatened and endangered species or beneficial organisms. The plant-pesticide Cry3A was previously approved in several CPB-resistant potato plants. Prior studies on the toxicity of Cry3A to mammals, allergenicity, and environmental fate data on the impact to avian species, nontarget and beneficial insects, honeybees and nontarget organisms, determined that Cry3A would not negatively impact non-target organisms or effect threatened and endangered species. Similarly, the PVY CP is found in all PVY-infected plants, and there are no reports of this protein (or PVY-infected plants) having any toxic effects. The NPTII protein is ubiquitous in the environment and was determined not to have potential for toxicity.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">These potato lines have no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend their use beyond the current geographic range of potato production. Since there is no occurrence of wild relatives of potato in Canada, there will be no transfer of novel traits to related species in unmanaged environments. Similarly, as the potential for gene transfer to tuber-producing wild relatives in the United States is very remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits from RBMT15-101, SEMT15-02 and SEMT15-15 to species in unmanaged environments was insignificant.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Other Considerations</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In order to prolong the effectiveness of plant-expressed <i>Bt</i> toxins, and the microbial spray formulations of these same toxins, regulatory authorities in Canada and United States have required developers to implement specific Insect Resistant Management (IRM) programs. These programs are mandatory for all transgenic <i>Bt</i>-expressing plants and require that growers plant a certain percentage of their acreage with non-transgenic varieties in order to reduce the potential for selecting <i>Bt</i>-resistant insect populations. Details on the specific design and requirements of individual IRM programs are published by the relevant regulatory authority.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:26:18'),
(32, 53, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">These transgenic potato lines were field tested in the United States and Canada, and their agronomic characteristics were shown to be within the range of values displayed by conventional Russet Burbank. Susceptibilities to diseases such as PVY, early blight, late blight and verticillium were unchanged. Colorado potato beetle, the target insect, was controlled in test plots throughout the growing season. Field trial reports demonstrated that these potatoes did not exhibit weedy characteristics, and had no effect on nontarget organisms or the general environment.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In general, the natural exchange of genetic material from transgenic potato is only possible with other varieties of potato (<i>Solanum tuberosum</i>). Since the reproductive characteristics of these transgenic potatoes were unchanged by the genetic modification, they should be no different than the parent cultivar &#39;Russet Burbank&#39;. The chances for successful hybridization between bioengineered potato lines and most wild relatives is extremely unlikely, as potatoes (<i>Solanum tuberosum</i>) are unsuccessful in forming natural hybrids with the native or introduced weeds of Solanum species that do not bear tubers. In Canada there are no tuber producing wild relatives of Solanum. In the United States, tuber-bearing Solanum species include <i>S. jamesii</i>, <i>S. fendleri</i>, and <i>S. pinnatisectum</i>. However, the possibility of gene introgression is excluded due to constraints of geographical isolation and other biological barriers to natural hybridization. No natural hybrids have been observed between these species and cultivated potatoes. It was concluded that CPB and PLRV resistance were unlikely to increase weediness characteristics and that should CPB and PVY resistance genes be capable of introgression into wild species, the traits would be unlikely to provide a selective advantage sufficient to enable these hybrids to become serious weeds.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Studies demonstrated that Cry3A protein was not toxic to non-target organisms represented by larval and adult honeybee, ladybird beetle, green lacewing, parasitic wasp, Collembola sp., earthworm, mice and bobwhite quail. It was concluded that the genes inserted into these transgenic potato lines would not result in any deleterious effects or significant impacts on nontarget organisms, including threatened and endangered species or beneficial organisms.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">These potato lines have no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend their use beyond the current geographic range of potato production. Since there is no occurrence of wild relatives of potato in Canada or the United States, there will be no transfer of novel traits to these species in unmanaged environments.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Other Considerations</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In order to prolong the effectiveness of plant-expressed <i>Bt</i> toxins, and the microbial spray formulations of these same toxins, regulatory authorities in Canada and United States have required developers to implement specific Insect Resistant Management (IRM) programs. These programs are mandatory for all transgenic <i>Bt</i>-expressing plants, including the potato lines described here, and require that growers plant a certain percentage of their acreage with non-transgenic varieties in order to reduce the potential for selecting <i>Bt</i>-resistant insect populations. Details on the specific design and requirements of individual IRM programs are published by the relevant regulatory authority.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:23:36'),
(33, 20, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">These transgenic potatoes were field tested in the United States (1991-1994) and in Canada (1992-1995), and were compared to non-transgenic Russet Burbank for differences in physical characteristics, disease susceptibility, and insect susceptibility. The field data reports indicated no obvious differences in the number of volunteers, emergence from seed potatoes, percent stand (emergence), overwintering capacity, and tuber yield and quality. Susceptibilities to diseases, other than to CPB, including early blight, late blight, verticillium, potato leaf roll virus, and potato virus Y were unchanged. Field observations confirmed that Colorado potato beetle was controlled at all stages of development throughout the growing season and also indicated that potato flea beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae, <i>Epitrix cucumeris</i> Harris) were affected to some extent. Overall the field data reports and data on agronomic traits showed that the CPB-resistant potato lines had no potential to pose a plant pest risk.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In general, the natural exchange of genetic material is only possible with other varieties of potato <i>Solanum tuberosum</i>. Since the reproductive characteristics of the CPB-resistant potato lines were unchanged by the genetic modification, they should be no different than the parent cultivar &#39;Russet Burbank&#39;. Gene exchange between CPB-resistant potatoes and other Solanum species is very unlikely and is limited to cross-pollination with other potatoes.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Gene transfer from CPB-resistant potato lines and other potato cultivars is limited. Multiple barriers, such as male sterility in the CPB-resistant potato lines derived from the male sterile cultivar &#39;Russet Burbank&#39;, prevent pollen production. Cross-pollination between CPB-resistant potatoes and male-fertile potato cultivars and subsequent seed production would be very unlikely due to limited pollen dispersal in potatoes. Should such an event occur, the resultant progeny must be male fertile in order for further introgression to occur.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The chances for successful hybridization between transformed potato lines BT6, BT10, BT12, BT16, BT17, BT18, and BT23 and most wild relatives is extremely unlikely as potatoes (<i>Solanum tuberosum</i>) are unsuccessful in forming natural hybrids with the native or introduced weeds of Solanum species that do not bear tubers. In Canada there are no tuber producing wild relatives of Solanum. In the United States, tuber-bearing Solanum species include <i>S. jamesii</i>, <i>S. fendleri</i>, and <i>S. pinnatisectum</i>. However, the possibility of gene introgression is excluded due to constraints of geographical isolation and other biological barriers to natural hybridization. No natural hybrids have been observed between these species and cultivated potatoes.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to CPB-resistant potato lines, other than resistance to CPB, which will not, in itself, render potatoes weedy or invasive of natural habitats as none of the reproductive or growth characteristics have been modified.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Potatoes do not exhibit weediness characteristics and have difficulty becoming established outside cultivated fields. Small tubers left in the ground after harvest (groundskeepers) may give rise to volunteer plants in the next crop but are usually killed by frost or drought. Surviving volunteers can be controlled with herbicides and cultivation. Furthermore, seed dispersal is limited as dissemination is by tuber and seed. Outside of cultivated areas, seedlings grown from true seed do not compete successfully and are not reported as a weed pest.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The host ranges and habitats of the nine coleopteran insect species currently listed or proposed as threatened and endangered were examined to determine if CPB-resistant potatoes might have an adverse impact on these species. None of these species were found to inhabit potato fields or feed on potatoes, and they usually occurred in specialized habitats. For example, some of these insects (<i>i.e.</i>, the Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle and the Coffin Cave mold beetle) live in caves, and some (<i>i.e.</i>, northeastern beach tiger beetle and puritan tiger beetle) live on beaches.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Other invertebrates, such as earthworms, and all vertebrate organisms, including non-target birds, mammals and humans, were not expected to be affected by the Cry3A insect control protein, because they do not contain the receptor protein found in the midgut of target insects.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Dietary toxicity studies were performed using the 68 kDa microbial protein on beneficial insects (honeybee, ladybird beetle, green lacewing and parasitic wasp), and with eight non-target insect species representing the orders of Coleoptera, Diptera, Homoptera, Lepidoptera and Orthoptera (southern corn rootworm, yellow fever mosquito, green peach aphid, European corn borer, tobacco hornworm, corn earworm, tobacco budworm and German cockroach). No negative effects were observed, except for slightly higher mortality and reduced honeydew production of green peach aphids. Green peach aphids are major vectors of potato viruses, specifically of the potato leaf roll virus, and are chemically controlled in standard potato production systems. The effect of CPB-potatoes on these aphids was therefore negligible in terms of environmental impact.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The density of insect populations was investigated. The following beneficial and predacious arthropods were significantly more abundant in the transgenic potato plots than in those treated with conventional chemical insecticides: big eyed bugs, damsel bugs, minute pirate bugs, some Hymenoptera spp. and spiders. As a result, aphid populations may be reduced through predation by natural enemies. Field observations also showed that populations of the detritivorous collembolans were as abundant in CPB-resistant potato fields as in fields of non-transgenic potato counterparts, and more abundant than in those treated with conventional chemical insecticides.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">CPB-resistant potato lines have no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend their use beyond the current geographic range of potato production. Since there is no occurrence of wild relatives of potato in Canada, there will be no transfer of novel traits to unmanaged environments. Similarly, as the risk of gene transfer to tuber-producing wild relatives in the United States is very remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits from CPB-resistant potato lines to species in unmanaged environments was insignificant.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Other Considerations</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In order to prolong the effectiveness of plant-expressed <i>Bt</i> toxins, and the microbial spray formulations of these same toxins, regulatory authorities in Canada and United States have required developers to implement specific Insect Resistant Management (IRM) programs. These programs are mandatory for all transgenic <i>Bt</i>-expressing plants, including CBP-resistant potato lines, and require that growers plant a certain percentage of their acreage with non-transgenic varieties in order to reduce the potential for selecting <i>Bt</i>-resistant insect populations. Details on the specific design and requirements of individual IRM programs are published by the relevant regulatory authority.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-30 01:34:47'),
(34, 10, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Over several years of field testing, these transgenic potatoes have been compared to non-transgenic &lsquo;Atlantic&rsquo; and &lsquo;Superior&rsquo; cultivars for differences in physical characteristics, disease susceptibility, and insect susceptibility. The field data reports indicated no obvious differences in the number of volunteers, emergence from seed potatoes, percent stand (emergence), overwintering capacity, and tuber yield and quality. Susceptibilities to diseases, other than to CPB, including early blight, late blight, verticillium, potato leaf roll virus, and potato virus Y were unchanged.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Field observations confirmed that Colorado potato beetle was controlled at all stages of development throughout the growing season and also indicated that potato flea beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae, Epitrix cucumeris Harris) were affected to some extent. Overall the field data reports and data on agronomic traits showed that the CPB-resistant potato lines had no potential to pose a plant pest risk.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In general, the natural exchange of genetic material is only possible with other varieties of potato <i>Solanum tuberosum</i>. Since the reproductive characteristics of the CPB-resistant potato lines were unchanged by the genetic modification, they should be no different than the parent cultivars. Gene exchange between and CPB-resistant potatoes and other Solanum species is very unlikely and is limited to cross-pollination with other potatoes.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to CPB-resistant potato lines, other than resistance to CPB, which will not, in itself, render potatoes weedy or invasive of natural habitats, since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics have been modified.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Potatoes do not exhibit weediness characteristics and have difficulty becoming established outside cultivated fields. Small tubers left in the ground after harvest (groundkeepers) may give rise to volunteer plants in the next crop but are usually killed by frost or drought. Surviving volunteers can be controlled with herbicides and cultivation. Furthermore, seed dispersal is limited as dissemination is by tuber and seed. Outside of cultivated areas, seedlings grown from true seed do not compete successfully and are not reported as a weed pest.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The host ranges and habitats of the nine coleopteran insect species currently listed or proposed as threatened and endangered were examined to determine if CPB-resistant potatoes might have an adverse impact on these species. None of these species were found to inhabit potato fields or feed on potatoes, and they usually occurred in specialized habitats. For example, some of these insects (<i>i.e.</i>, the Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle and the Coffin Cave mold beetle) live in caves, and some (<i>i.e.</i>, northeastern beach tiger beetle and puritan tiger beetle) live on beaches.<br />\nOther invertebrates, such as earthworms, and all vertebrate organisms, including non-target birds, mammals and humans, were not expected to be affected by the Cry3A insect control protein, because they do not contain the receptor protein found in the midgut of target insects.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Dietary toxicity studies were performed using the 68 kDa microbial protein on beneficial insects (honeybee, ladybird beetle, green lacewing and parasitic wasp), and with eight non-target insect species representing the orders of Coleoptera, Diptera, Homoptera, Lepidoptera and Orthoptera (southern corn rootworm, yellow fever mosquito, green peach aphid, European corn borer, tobacco hornworm, corn earworm, tobacco budworm and German cockroach). No negative effect was observed, except for slightly higher mortality and reduced honeydew production of green peach aphids. Green peach aphids are major vectors of potato viruses, specifically of the potato leaf roll virus, and are chemically controlled in standard potato production systems. The effect of CPB-potatoes on these aphids was therefore negligible in terms of environmental impact.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The density of insect populations was investigated. The following beneficial and predacious arthropods were significantly more abundant in the transgenic potato plots than in those treated with conventional chemical insecticides: big eyed bugs, damsel bugs, minute pirate bugs, some Hymenoptera spp. and spiders. As a result, aphid populations may be reduced through predation by natural enemies. Field observations also showed that populations of the detritivorous collembolans were as abundant in CPB-resistant potato fields than in fields of non-transgenic potato counterparts, and more abundant than in those treated with conventional chemical insecticides.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">CPB-resistant potato lines have no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend their use beyond the current geographic range of potato production. Since there is no occurrence of wild relatives of potato in Canada, there will be no transfer of novel traits to unmanaged environments. Similarly, as the risk of gene transfer to tuber-producing wild relatives in the United States is very remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits from CPB-resistant potato lines to species in unmanaged environments was insignificant.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Other Considerations</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In order to prolong the effectiveness of plant-expressed <i>Bt</i> toxins, and the microbial spray formulations of these same toxins, regulatory authorities in Canada and United States have required developers to implement specific Insect Resistant Management (IRM) programs. These programs are mandatory for all transgenic <i>Bt</i>-expressing plants, including CBP-resistant potato lines, and require that growers plant a certain percentage of their acreage with non-transgenic varieties in order to reduce the potential for selecting <i>Bt</i>-resistant insect populations. Details on the specific design and requirements of individual IRM programs are published by the relevant regulatory authority.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 21:53:16'),
(35, 14, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic cotton lines 531, 757 and 1076 were field tested in the United States (1990-1994). Agronomic characteristics such as yield, boll size, plant vigour, growth, morphology, germination and flowering, were compared to those of unmodified cotton counterparts and were shown to be within the range of non-transformed cotton lines. Stress adaptation was evaluated, including susceptibility to various pests and pathogens. Susceptibilities to diseases such as bacterial blight, boll rot, Fusarium, Phymatotricum root rot, and verticillium wilt were unchanged. Processing qualities of cotton lint such as micronaire, length, strength and elongation were compared. The observed variability was within the range of inherent variability of cotton varieties and was not attributed to the inserted genes. Reports demonstrated that the cotton lines 531, 757 and 1076 did not exhibit weedy characteristics and had no effect on nontarget organisms or the general environment relative to conventional cotton varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cotton (<i>Gossypium hirsutum</i>) is mainly a self-pollinating plant, but insects, especially bumblebees and honeybees, also routinely transfer pollen. The pollen is heavy and sticky and the range of natural crossing is limited. Outcrossing rates of up to 28% to other cotton cultivars have been observed under field conditions and decline rapidly with distance from the pollen source. Given proximity and the availability of insects as pollen vectors, transgenic cotton lines 531, 757 and 1076 are likely to hybridize with other cotton varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In the United States, compatible species include <i>G. hirsutum</i> (wild or under cultivation), <i>G. barbadense</i> (cultivated Pima cotton), and <i>G. tomentosum</i>. There are no wild relatives or wild populations of cotton in Canada that can naturally hybridize with <i>G. hirsutum</i>. It was reported that gene movement from <i>G. hirsutum</i> to <i>G. barbadense</i> may be possible given suitable conditions, while gene transfer to <i>G. tomentosum</i> is less probable due to chromosomal incompatibility and non-synchronous flowering periods. Overall, the probability of gene transfer in unmanaged ecosystems is unlikely due to the relatively isolated distribution of Gossypium species, different breeding systems, and genome incompatibility. Hybrids resulting from artificial crosses between cotton and wild species are generally sterile, unstable and of poor fitness</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The Cry1Ac or NPTII encoding genes were not expected to confer an ecological advantage to transgenic cotton lines 531, 757 and 1076 and their potential hybrid offspring. Resistance to kanamycin and specific lepidopteran insects will not render cotton weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics have been modified. Field trial reports indicated that traits which may confer a selective advantage, such as increase in volunteers from seed, regrowth from stubble, or increase in seed dormancy in cotton lines 531, 757 and 1076 were equivalent to non-modified varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">There are no specific problems with cotton as a weed. Cottonseed may remain in the field after harvesting and germinate under favorable conditions. Seeds may also survive mild and dry winters. Suitable treatments for any volunteers in the next crop include cultivation and the use of herbicides.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was concluded that the introduction of the Cry1Ac and NPTII encoding genes into transgenic cotton lines 531, 757 and 1076 would not result in any deleterious effects or significant impacts on nontarget organisms, including those that are recognized as beneficial to agriculture and those that are recognized as threatened or endangered in the United States and Canada.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The novel proteins, Cry1Ac and NPTII, expressed in these cotton lines are not known to have any toxic properties on any nontarget organisms. The lack of known toxicity for these proteins and the low levels of expression in plant tissue suggest no potential for deleterious effects on beneficial organisms such as bees and earthworms.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The insecticidal protein was shown to be active on only lepidopteran species, even when fed at levels that were well above the concentrations that were effective on target species. Host range specificity was similar for the native and synthetic proteins. Tobacco hornworm was the most sensitive species and tobacco budworm, corn earworm and European corn borer were relatively less sensitive. The test system included six non-target species representing the orders Coleoptera, Diptera, Orthoptera and Homoptera (boll weevil, Southern corn rootworm, Colorado potato beetle, yellow fever mosquito, German cockroach and green peach aphid).</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Dietary toxicity studies were performed using the microbial protein on beneficial insects (honeybee, ladybird beetle, green lacewing larvae and parasitic wasp). No effect was observed on non-target insects at concentrations more than 100 fold higher than those used to control target insects.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Acute oral and short-term studies were undertaken with albino mice and bobwhite quail. After 8 days there were no observable effects on mice fed the insecticidal protein at the highest dose of 4,000 mg/kg body weight. Raw cottonseed was fed at up to 100,000 ppm to bobwhite quail with no observed effects. These observations were expected, as the novel proteins are rapidly inactivated in simulated mammalian stomach fluids by enzymatic degradation and pH-mediated proteolysis. The proteins expressed in transgenic cotton lines were shown to be equivalent to the original microbial proteins produced by the common soil <i>B. thuringiensis</i> subsp. <i>kurstaki</i> bacteria.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic cotton lines 531, 757 and 1076 had no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend their use beyond the current geographic range of cotton production. Since there is no occurrence of wild relatives of cotton in Canada, there will be no transfer of novel traits to unmanaged environments. Similarly, as the risk of gene transfer to wild relatives in the United States is very remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits from cotton lines 531, 757 and 1076 to species in unmanaged environments was insignificant.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 22:02:47'),
(36, 52, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic cotton lines 1445 and 1698 were field tested in the United States (1991-1994). Compared with non-transgenic control lines, susceptibilities to diseases such as bacterial blight, boll rot, Verticillium wilt, and Ascochyta blight were unchanged. Similarly, no differences were noted in the susceptibility of the transformed cotton lines to insect pests, such as aphids, fleahoppers, boll weevils, tobacco budworm, cotton bollworm, and thrips, when compared to non-transformed cotton lines. Reports demonstrated that the cotton lines 1445 and 1698 did not exhibit weedy characteristics, and had no effect on nontarget organisms or the general environment relative to conventional cotton varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cotton (<i>Gossypium hirsutum</i>) is mainly a self-pollinating plant, but pollen is also routinely transferred by insects, especially bumble bees and honey bees. The pollen is heavy and sticky and the range of natural crossing is limited. Outcrossing rates of up to 28% to other cotton cultivars have been observed under field conditions and decline rapidly with distance from the pollen source. Given proximity and the availability of insects as pollen vectors, transgenic cotton lines 1445 and 1698 are likely to hybridize with other cotton varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In the United States, compatible species include <i>G. hirsutum</i> (wild or under cultivation), <i>G. barbadense</i> (cultivated Pima cotton), and <i>G. tomentosum</i>. There are no wild relatives or wild populations of cotton in Canada that can naturally hybridize with <i>G. hirsutum</i>. It was reported that gene movement from <i>G. hirsutum</i> to <i>G. barbadense</i> may be possible given suitable conditions, while gene transfer to <i>G. tomentosum</i> is less probable due to chromosomal incompatibility and non-synchronous flowering periods. Overall, the probability of gene transfer in the wild is unlikely due to the relatively isolated distribution of Gossypium species, different breeding systems, and genome incompatibility. Hybrids resulting from artificial crosses between cotton and wild species are generally sterile, unstable and of poor fitness.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The CP4 EPSPS and NPTII encoding genes are not expected to confer an ecological advantage to transgenic cotton lines 1445 and 1698 and their potential hybrid offspring. Tolerance to glyphosate and resistance to kanamycin will not render cotton weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics have been modified. Field trial reports indicated that traits that may confer a selective advantage, such as germination, vegetative vigour, disease and insect susceptibility, and reproduction, were equivalent to non-modified varieties.<br />\nThere are no specific problems with cotton as a weed. Cottonseed may remain in the field after harvesting and germinate under favourable conditions. Seeds may also survive mild and dry winters. Suitable treatments for any volunteers in the next crop include cultivation and the use of herbicides other than glyphosate.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was concluded that the genes inserted into the transgenic cotton lines 1445 and 1698 would not result in any deleterious effects or significant impacts on nontarget organisms, including those that are recognized as beneficial to agriculture and those that are recognized as threatened or endangered in the United States and Canada. The CP4 EPSPS enzyme is ubiquitous in microorganisms, fungi and plants, and was rapidly inactivated in mammalian stomach and intestinal fluids by enzymatic degradation and pH-mediated proteolysis. Exposure of non-target species to seeds was considered very low, due to the morphology of the boll. Feeding studies with birds (seeds) and mammals (both proteins) did not indicate any acute toxicity of the proteins, which also occur ubiquitously in the environment in plants and microorganisms.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic cotton lines 1445 and 1698 had no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend their use beyond the current geographic range of cotton production. Since there is no occurrence of wild relatives of cotton in Canada, there will be no transfer of novel traits to unmanaged environments. Similarly, as the risk of gene transfer to wild relatives in the United States is very remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits from cotton lines 1445 and 1698 to species in unmanaged environments was insignificant.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:16:13'),
(37, 34, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic cotton lines 31807 and 31808 were field tested in the United States and it was concluded that they did not exhibit weedy characteristics, and had no effect on nontarget organisms or the general environment.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cotton (<i>Gossypium hirsutum</i>) is mainly a self-pollinating plant, but insects, especially bumblebees and honeybees, also routinely transfer pollen. The pollen is heavy and sticky and the range of natural crossing is limited. Outcrossing rates of up to 28% to other cotton cultivars have been observed under field conditions and decline rapidly with distance from the pollen source. Given proximity and the availability of insects as pollen vectors, transgenic cotton lines 31807 and 31808 are likely to hybridize with other cotton varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In the United States, compatible species include <i>G. hirsutum</i> (wild or under cultivation), <i>G. barbadense</i> (cultivated Pima cotton), and <i>G. tomentosum</i>. There are no wild relatives or wild populations of cotton in Canada that can naturally hybridize with <i>G. hirsutum</i>. It was reported that gene movement from <i>G. hirsutum</i> to <i>G. barbadense</i> may be possible given suitable conditions, while gene transfer to <i>G. tomentosum</i> is less probable due to chromosomal incompatibility and non-synchronous flowering periods. Overall, the probability of gene transfer in the wild is unlikely due to the relatively isolated distribution of Gossypium species, different breeding systems, and genome incompatibility. Hybrids resulting from artificial crosses between cotton and wild species are generally sterile, unstable and of poor fitness.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The introduced genes were not expected to confer an ecological advantage to transgenic cotton lines 31807 and 31808 and their potential hybrid offspring. Resistance to specific lepidopteran insects, tolerance to bromoxynil herbicide and kanamycin resistance will not render cotton weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics have been modified. Since both lines were to be cultivated in a managed agricultural system there would be very little selective pressure for these plants to become weeds. It was concluded that it was unlikely that the traits would confer any selective advantage to the cotton lines 31807 and 31808.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">There are no specific problems with cotton as a weed. Cottonseed may remain in the field after harvesting and germinate under favourable conditions. Seeds may also survive mild and dry winters. Suitable treatments for any volunteers in the next crop include cultivation and the use of herbicides other than bromoxynil.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was concluded that the genes inserted into the transgenic cotton lines 31807 and 31808 would not result in any deleterious effects or significant impacts on nontarget organisms, with the exception of the target lepidopteran caterpillars, including those that are recognized as beneficial to agriculture and those that are recognized as threatened or endangered in the United States.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The novel proteins, Cry1Ac, nitrilase and NPTII expressed in cotton lines 31807 and 31808 are not known to have any toxic effects on any nontarget organisms. The lack of known toxicity for these proteins and their low levels of expression in plant tissue suggest no potential for deleterious effects on beneficial organisms such as bees and earthworms. Both nitrilase and NPTII act on a narrow range of substrates making it unlikely that these compounds would react with other substances to produce novel toxic compounds in organisms that consume these transgenic cotton lines.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic cotton lines 31807 and 31808 had no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend their use beyond the current geographic range of cotton production. As the risk of gene transfer to wild relatives in the United States is very remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits from cotton lines 31807 and 31808 to species in unmanaged environments was not significant.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 22:50:32'),
(38, 29, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Transgenic BXN&trade; cotton was field tested in the United States at a total of 57 sites in 13 states. Field tests were also conducted in Argentina, Bolivia, and South Africa in accordance with national regulatory requirements. Based on data collected from these trials, it was concluded that this transgenic cotton line did not exhibit weedy characteristics, and had no effect on nontarget organisms or the general environment.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cotton (<i>Gossypium hirsutum</i>) is mainly a self-pollinating plant, but insects, especially bumblebees and honeybees, also routinely transfer pollen. The pollen is heavy and sticky and the range of natural crossing is limited. Outcrossing rates of up to 28% to other cotton cultivars have been observed under field conditions and decline rapidly with distance from the pollen source. Given proximity and the availability of insects as pollen vectors, transgenic cotton line BXN&trade; is likely to hybridize with other cotton varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In the United States, compatible species include <i>G. hirsutum</i> (wild or under cultivation), <i>G. barbadense</i> (cultivated Pima cotton), and <i>G. tomentosum</i>. It was reported that gene movement from <i>G. hirsutum</i> to <i>G. barbadense</i> may be possible given suitable conditions, while gene transfer to <i>G. tomentosum</i> is less probable due to chromosomal incompatibility and non-synchronous flowering periods. Overall, the probability of gene transfer in the wild is unlikely due to the relatively isolated distribution of Gossypium species, different breeding systems, and genome incompatibility. Hybrids resulting from artificial crosses between cotton and wild species are generally sterile, unstable and of poor fitness.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The introduced genes were not expected to confer an ecological advantage to transgenic cotton line BXN&trade; and its potential hybrid offspring. Tolerance to bromoxynil herbicide and kanamycin resistance will not render cotton weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics have been modified.<br />\nThere are no specific problems with cotton as a weed. Cottonseed may remain in the field after harvesting and germinate under favourable conditions. Seeds may also survive mild and dry winters. Suitable treatments for any volunteers in the next crop include cultivation and the use of herbicides other than bromoxynil.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The novel proteins, nitrilase and NPTII, are not known to have any toxic properties on any nontarget organisms. The lack of known toxicity for these proteins and the low levels of their expression in plant tissue suggest no potential for deleterious effects on beneficial organisms such as bees and earthworms. Both nitrilase and NPTII act on a narrow range of substrates making it unlikely that these compounds would react with other substances to produce novel toxic compounds in organisms that consume these transgenic cotton lines.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">This transgenic cotton line has no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of cotton production. As the risk of gene transfer to wild relatives in the United States is very remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits from BXN&trade; cotton to species in unmanaged environments was not significant.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 22:38:51');
INSERT INTO `gmcropdatabase_events_esafeties` (`id`, `eventId`, `description`, `created`, `updated`) VALUES
(39, 61, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">FLAVR SAVR&trade; tomatoes were field tested in the United States from 1988 to 1992. Field trials demonstrated that the variation in agronomic characteristics among the FLAVR SAVR&trade; tomato lines did not differ significantly from the natural variation found in commercial cultivars of tomato. These reports determined that FLAVR SAVR&trade; tomatoes did not exhibit weedy characteristics, and have no effect on nontarget organisms or the general environment.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cultivated tomatoes are self-fertile, and almost exclusively self-pollinating. Their unique flower and anther morphology makes tomato an essentially cleistogamous plant (self-pollination and fertilization occur within an unopened flower). A low crossing rate between tomato varieties was demonstrated and attributed to limited availability of pollen and poor foraging activity of insect pollinators.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Several related species are found as weeds in tomato fields, however tomato is generally sexually incompatible with all these weedy relatives. Two Solanum species, <i>S. lycopersicoides</i> and <i>S. rickii</i>, can be crossed with commercial tomato under specific, controlled conditions, but they do not naturally cross with <i>L. esculentum</i> and require the intervention of man. Neither Solanum species is a weed pest in the United States.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The cherry tomato, <i>L. esculentum</i> var. cerasiforme can be crossed with tomato, <i>L. esculentum</i> var. esculentum. However, it would be very unlikely for traits from FLAVR SAVR&trade; tomato to naturally introgress into cherry tomatoes (var. cerasiforme) in the United States since the rate of outcrossing in tomatoes is low and cherry tomatoes are not common in areas devoted to large-scale cultivation of tomatoes.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was concluded that the chance of genetic exchange both among tomato crops and with other species, was species remote. In the event that an outcrossing event involving pollen from a FLAVR SAVR&trade; tomato did occur, it was unlikely the antisense modification to delay fruit softening could affect seed persistence or weediness potential in progeny. Field testing determined that the expression of the antisense PG gene did not change any morphological or physiological characteristics which might affect pollination. It was determined that there was no likelihood that these modified tomato lines would gain a selective advantage that would enable FLAVR SAVR&trade; tomatoes to become weeds or increase the weedy potential of another plant.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">FLAVR SAVR&trade; tomato has little potential to become a weed. There were no morphological, physiological, or disease resistance characteristics of the FLAVR SAVR&trade; tomato that differed significantly from the agricultural practices used normally for the propagation of tomatoes, with the exception of having the potential to be left longer in the field to ripen. Although having an increased field ripening period, FLAVR SAVR&trade; tomatoes eventually decay into components, which are presumably identical to the decay components of nontransgenic tomatoes. FLAVR SAVR&trade; tomato differed with respect to having an increased resistance to certain fungal pathogens, likely due to the increased integrity of the cell walls.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Tomatoes are not considered a weed pest. Tomato volunteers are not uncommon, but are easily controlled using herbicides or by mechanical means. Seed dispersal by birds or mammals is insignificant. Furthermore, due to its tropical origin, tomato is very sensitive to temperatures below 10&ordm;C and winter cold will kill the majority of volunteer seedlings following harvest. Tomatoes are not persistent in undisturbed environments without human intervention.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was concluded that the genes inserted into FLAVR SAVR&trade; tomatoes would not result in any deleterious effects or significant impacts on nontarget organisms, including those that are recognized as beneficial to agriculture and those that are recognized as threatened or endangered in the United States. Since the antisense PG gene construct did not result in the production of any new protein(s), there is unlikely to be any associated toxicity. Field testing determined that there were no significant differences in the susceptibility of modified and non-modified crops to pests and diseases. Analysis of biochemical components of FLAVR SAVR&trade; tomatoes were compared to nontransgenic tomatoes and no toxic components were identified in concentrations that differed significantly from the concentrations found in nontransgenic tomatoes. Furthermore, FLAVR SAVR&trade; tomatoes have neither direct pathogenic properties nor any hypothetical mechanisms for pathogenesis.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">FLAVR SAVR&trade; tomatoes have no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend their use beyond the current geographic range of tomato production. Since the risk of gene transfer to wild relatives in the United States is very remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits of FLAVR SAVR&trade; tomatoes to species in unmanaged environments was not significant.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:35:32'),
(40, 43, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic tomato line 1345-4 was field tested in the United States from 1992 to 1994. The agronomic characteristics of line 1345-4 were evaluated extensively in laboratory, greenhouse, and field experiments. The line 1345-4 retained the agronomic characteristics of the parental tomato, and field reports on seed germination rates, yield characteristics, disease and pest susceptibilities, and fruit compositional analyses determined that line 1345-4 was comparable to the unmodified parental line, with the exception of reduced ACC synthase activity. Field trial reports demonstrated that transgenic tomato line 1345-4 did not exhibit weedy characteristics, and had no effect on nontarget organisms or the general environment.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cultivated tomatoes are self-fertile, and almost exclusively self-pollinating. Their unique flower and anther morphology makes tomato an essentially cleistogamous plant (self-pollination and fertilization occur within an unopened flower). A low crossing rate between tomato varieties was demonstrated and attributed to the limited availability of pollen and poor foraging activity of insect pollinators. Several related species are found as weeds in tomato fields, however tomato (<i>Lycopersicon esculentum</i> var. esculentum) is generally sexually incompatible with all these weedy relatives. Two Solanum species, <i>S. lycopersicoides</i> and <i>S. rickii</i>, can be crossed with commercial tomato under specific, controlled conditions, but they do not naturally cross with <i>L. esculentum</i> and require the intervention of man. Neither Solanum species is a weed pest in the United States. The cherry tomato, <i>L. esculentum</i> var. cerasiforme, can be crossed with tomato. However, it would be very unlikely for traits in transgenic tomato line 1345-4 to naturally introgress into cherry tomatoes (var. cerasiforme) in the United States since the rate of outcrossing in tomatoes is low and cherry tomatoes are not common in areas devoted to large-scale cultivation of tomatoes. It was concluded that the chance of genetic exchange both among tomato crops and to other species was remote. In the event that an outcrossing event involving pollen from tomato line 1345-4 did occur, it was unlikely the modification to delay fruit softening would affect seed persistence or weediness potential in progeny.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Tomatoes are not considered a weed pest. There was no evidence to indicate that the presence of a truncated ACC synthase gene in line 1345-4 would convert it into a weed. Tomato volunteers are not uncommon, but are easily controlled using herbicides or by mechanical means. Seed dispersal by birds or mammals is insignificant. Furthermore, due to its tropical origin, tomato is very sensitive to temperatures below 10&deg;C and winter cold will kill the majority of volunteer seedlings following harvest. Tomatoes are not persistent in undisturbed environments without human intervention. It was concluded that there was no likelihood that tomato line 1345-4 would have enhanced weediness traits compared to non-transformed tomatoes.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was concluded that the genes inserted into tomato line 1345-4 would not result in any deleterious effects or significant impacts on nontarget organisms, including those that are recognized as beneficial to agriculture and those that are recognized as threatened or endangered in the United States. The truncated ACC synthase gene did not result in the expression of any new protein(s) in line 1345-4 and should not have any toxic properties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic tomato line 1345-4 has no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of tomato production. Since the risk of gene transfer to wild relatives in the United States is very remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits of line 1345-4 to species in unmanaged environments was not significant.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:00:54'),
(106, 99, '', '2013-08-29 19:05:09', '2013-08-29 19:05:09'),
(42, 59, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Tomato lines B, Da and F were field tested in the United States from 1991 to 1994. The agronomic characteristics of lines B, Da and F were evaluated extensively in laboratory, greenhouse, and field experiments. It was determined that tomato lines B, Da and F did not exhibit weedy characteristics, nor did they have any effect on nontarget organisms or the general environment.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cultivated tomatoes are self-fertile, and almost exclusively self-pollinating. Their unique flower and anther morphology makes tomato an essentially cleistogamous plant (self-pollination and fertilization occur within an unopened flower). A low crossing rate between tomato varieties was demonstrated and attributed to the limited availability of pollen and poor foraging activity of insect pollinators.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Several related species are found as weeds in tomato fields, however, tomato (<i>Lycopersicon esculentum</i> var. esculentum) is generally sexually incompatible with all these weedy relatives. Two Solanum species, <i>S. lycopersicoides</i> and <i>S. rickii</i>, can be crossed with commercial tomato under specific, controlled conditions, but they do not naturally cross with <i>L. esculentum</i> and require the intervention of man. Neither Solanum species is a weed pest in the United States.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The cherry tomato, <i>L. esculentum</i> var. cerasiforme, can be crossed with tomato. However, it would be very unlikely for traits in tomato lines B, Da and F to naturally introgress into cherry tomatoes in the United States since the rate of outcrossing in tomatoes is low and cherry tomatoes are not common in areas devoted to large scale cultivation of tomatoes.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was concluded that the chance of genetic exchange among tomato crops was small and outside the species, remote. In the event that an outcrossing event involving pollen from transgenic tomato lines did occur, it was unlikely that the decrease in endogenous PG expression could affect seed persistence or weediness potential in progeny. Field testing determined that there were no changes to morphological or physiological characteristics which might affect pollination. It was determined that there was no likelihood that these modified tomato lines would gain a selective advantage to enable lines B, Da and F to become weeds or increase the weedy potential of another plant.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Tomatoes are not considered a weed pest. There was no evidence to indicate that the introduced trait, reduction in PG activity during fruit ripening, in lines Da, F, and B would convert them into weeds. Tomato volunteers are not uncommon, but are easily controlled using herbicides or by mechanical means. Seed dispersal by birds or mammals is insignificant. Furthermore, due to its tropical origin, tomato is very sensitive to temperatures below 10C and winter cold will kill the majority of volunteer seedlings following harvest. Tomatoes are not persistent in undisturbed environments without human intervention. It was concluded that there was no likelihood that tomato lines Da, F, and B would have enhanced weediness traits compared to non-transformed tomatoes.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The reduced levels of PG enzyme in genetically modified lines B, Da, and F should not have any toxic properties. Tomato flowers are unattractive to insect pollinators due to the limited availability of pollen. Bumblebee activity (<i>Bombus terrestris</i>) was found to be no different on modified and non-modified plants. Field testing determined that there were no significant differences in the susceptibility of modified and non-modified crops to pests and diseases. It was concluded that the genes inserted into transgenic tomato lines B, Da and F would not result in any deleterious effects or significant impacts on nontarget organisms, including those that are recognized as beneficial to agriculture and those that are recognized as threatened or endangered in the United States.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic tomato lines B, Da and F have no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend their use beyond the current geographic range of tomato production. Since the risk of gene transfer to wild relatives in the United States is very remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits of tomato lines B, Da and F to species in unmanaged environments was insignificant.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:32:25'),
(43, 38, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic squash line CZW-3 was field tested in the United States (1993 &ndash; 1996). CZW-3 was extensively tested in the laboratory, greenhouse, and field experiments and based on these assessments it was determined that the plants exhibited the typical agronomic characteristics of the parent crookneck squash, with the addition of resistance to CMV, ZYMV and WMV2 infection. Field trial reports demonstrated that CZW-3 did not exhibit weedy characteristics, and had no effect on nontarget organisms or the general environment.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Squash (<i>C. pepo</i>) and all other species of Cucurbita are monoecious (having both male and female flowers on the same plant) and produce heavy sticky pollen grains. Pollination requires an arthropod vector, usually a bee, to transmit the pollen from the staminate to the pistillate flower.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Interspecific hybridization has been extensively investigated and is well understood in the four cultivated species of <i>C. pepo</i>, <i>C. mixta</i>, <i>C. moschata</i>, and <i>C. maxima</i>. It is reported that F1 hybrids can be obtained in breeding programs, but only with difficulty and such hybrids are usually sterile. There is no evidence of spontaneous hybridization among these four species despite that fact that they have been grown side by side under cultivation for many generations (Whitaker &amp; Robinson, 1986).</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Successful transmission of genetic material from CZW-3 squash via pollen is possible to a limited number of squash relatives (Wilson, 1993). In the United States, there exists two free-living subspecies of <i>C. pepo</i> that can cross with cultivated squash varieties without loss of fertility (designated as free-living Cucuribita pepo or FLCP). These include the free living gourds in many states including Texas (<i>C. pepo</i> ssp. ovifera var. texana) and free-living gourds in Illinois, Arkansas, and Oklahoma (<i>C. pepo</i> ssp. ovifera var. ozarkana.). FLCP plants have grown in proximity to new, improved cultivars of squash, and there have been no reports to suggest that disease resistance traits have introgressed into FLCP plants to produce hybrid populations that pose increased problems as weeds. Furthermore, field tests with hybrid plants derived from controlled crosses of CZW-3 with FLCP plants indicate that FLCP x CZW-3 hybrids do not appear to be strong competitors when growing in fields that have not been tilled to remove competing wild plants.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Natural populations of FLCP appear to be largely free of infection by CMV, ZYMV and WMV2, suggesting that resistance to CMV, ZYMV and WMV2 would not provide any selective advantage. Should the virus resistance genes from CZW-3 transfer to FLCP plants, the selective pressure to maintain the virus resistance in natural populations of FLCP plants should be minimal, since all evidence supports the conclusion that FLCP populations are not under significant environmental stress from viral infection.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic squash line CZW-3 was not likely to present a plant pest risk as a weed. The parent plant, yellow crookneck squash, is an agricultural crop plant that exhibits no appreciable weedy characteristics. In general there are no reports of squash to be a common or troublesome weed anywhere in the United States (Bridges &amp; Baumman, 1992). Squash volunteers are not uncommon in areas next to production fields, but they do not readily establish feral or free-living populations. Volunteers are controlled by mechanical means or herbicides.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">There are no indications that resistance to CMV, ZYMV and WMV2 would result in CZW-3 squash becoming a weed. During field trials, the transgenic plants were examined for any characteristics that may increase their weediness potential, and none were observed. There were no major changes in seed germination, cucurbitin levels, seed set viability, susceptibility or resistance to pathogens or insects (except CMV, ZYMV and WMV2), and there were no differences in overwintering survivability between CZW-3 squash and nontransgenic squash. It was concluded that CZW-3 was unlikely to increase the weediness of yellow crookneck squash and was no more likely to become a weed than virus-resistant plants.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No direct pathogenic properties, nor any hypothetical mechanisms for pathogenesis toward beneficial organisms, such as bees and earthworms, were identified for CZW-3 squash. The coat proteins expressed in CZW-3 squash are not known to have any toxic properties. In fact, these viral coat proteins are routinely ingested by virtually all animals, including humans, when squash is consumed. Naturally occurring infections of susceptible squash varieties result in concentrations of coat proteins far higher than those that occur in the tissues of the CZW-3 squash. It was concluded that the genes inserted into the transgenic squash line CZW-3 would not result in any deleterious effects or significant impacts on nontarget organisms, including threatened and endangered species or beneficial organisms.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The squash line CZW-3 had no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of squash production. The impact of cultivation of CZW-3 squash on biodiversity was likely to be comparable to that from non-transgenic varieties.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 22:53:29'),
(44, 56, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Tomato line 5345 was field tested in the United States from 1994 to 1997. Field trials were conducted to evaluate agronomic characteristics including plant height at crop maturity, yield, maturity dates and to assess inheritance and segregation of novel traits, protein toxin expression data, and its effects on both target and non-target organisms. Comparisons with non-transformed tomato lines determined that the agronomic traits for line 5345 were well within the range of unmodified tomato lines. The only significant consistent difference between the insect resistant tomato line 5345 and the unmodified parent variety was in the expression of the insect toxic protein Cry1Ac. Field data reports demonstrated that tomato line 5345 did not exhibit weedy characteristics, and had no effect on nontarget organisms or the general environment.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cultivated tomatoes are self-fertile, and almost exclusively self-pollinating. Their unique flower and anther morphology makes tomato an essentially cleistogamous plant (self-pollination and fertilisation occur within an unopened flower). A low crossing rate between tomato varieties was demonstrated and attributed to the limited availability of pollen and poor foraging activity of insect pollinators.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Several related species are found as weeds in tomato fields, however, tomato (<i>Lycopersicon esculentum</i> var. esculentum) is generally sexually incompatible with all these weedy relatives. Two Solanum species, <i>S. lycopersicoides</i> and <i>S. rickii</i>, can be crossed with commercial tomato under specific, controlled conditions, but they do not naturally cross with <i>L. esculentum</i> and require the intervention of man. Neither Solanum species is a weed pest in the United States.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The cherry tomato, <i>L. esculentum</i> var. cerasiforme can be crossed with tomato, <i>L. esculentum</i> var. esculentum. However, it would be very unlikely for tomato line 5345 to naturally introgress into cherry tomatoes (var. cerasiforme) in the United States since the rate of outcrossing in tomatoes is low and cherry tomatoes are not common in areas devoted to large scale cultivation of tomatoes.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was concluded that the chance of genetic exchange among tomato crops was small and outcrossing to other species, even more remote. In the event that an outcrossing event involving pollen from transgenic tomato line 5345 did occur, it was unlikely that the lepidopteran resistance trait would increase the plants weediness or change any physiology related to survival.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Tomatoes are not considered a weed pest. There was no evidence to indicate that the introduced lepidopteran resistance trait in line 5345 would convert these tomato plants into weeds. Tomato volunteers are not uncommon, but are easily controlled using herbicides or by mechanical means. Seed dispersal by birds or mammals away from the crop is insignificant. Furthermore, due to its tropical origin, tomato is very sensitive to temperatures below 10oC and winter cold will kill the majority of volunteer seedlings following harvest. Tomatoes are not persistent in undisturbed environments without human intervention. It was concluded that there was no likelihood that tomato line 5345 would have enhanced weediness traits compared to non-transformed tomatoes.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was concluded that the genes inserted into transgenic tomato line 5345 would not result in any deleterious effects or significant impacts on nontarget organisms, including those that are recognized as beneficial to agriculture and those that are recognized as threatened or endangered in the United States. The Cry1Ac toxin protein is not known to have any toxic properties against non- target organisms.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic tomato line 5345 has no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of tomato production. Since the risk of gene transfer to wild relatives in the United States is very remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits of tomato line 5345 to species in unmanaged environments was not significant.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:30:24'),
(45, 55, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The rice lines LLRICE06 and LLRICE62 were field tested in the United States (1997 and 1998) and compared to their non-transgenic counterparts for agronomic characteristics, seed emergence, number of volunteers, disease susceptibility, and insect susceptibility and no obvious differences were detected. None of the field observations indicated that these transgenic rice lines had any increased potential to pose a plant pest risk.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cultivated rice (<i>Oryza sativa</i> L.) is primarily self-pollinating, although gene introgression into other cultivated rice is possible. Reported outcrossing rates are less than one percent and are limited by the biological characteristics of rice. Factors including flower morphology, inability of pollen to remain viable longer than a few minutes, and a lack of insect vectors for pollen spread contribute to the low propensity of rice to cross-pollinate.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In the United States, the only wild species known to be compatible to cultivated rice are <i>O. rufipogon</i>, which has been found in a single location in the Everglades of Florida, and red rice, a wild variant of cultivated <i>O. sativa</i>. It was considered very unlikely that cultivated rice would hybridize with <i>O. rufipogon</i>, since it occurs in a single isolated habitat that is not close to rice production areas. Consequently, red rice is considered to be the only wild species in which gene introgression from transgenic rice could occur.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Red rice is considered a weedy species in the cultivation of rice, as the reproduction of red rice favours specific environmental conditions (such as flooded fields) that are typical in the cultivation of commercial rice. Outside of rice production areas, red rice is not a weed species, however, it was assessed to determine whether it could become a weed pest if it hybridized with the glufosinate tolerant LLRICE06 and LLRICE62.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Gene flow from cultivated rice into red rice can occur, although the rate is likely to be very low with levels being dependent on the degree of overlapping of flowering periods. Thus, it was possible for the bar gene conferring tolerance to glufosinate to introgress into red rice and result in a glufosinate?tolerant red rice population. It was determined that the presence of glufosinate tolerance in hybrid populations would not change the fitness characteristics nor increase weediness (<i>e.g.</i>, emergence vigor, final height, disease resistance, fecundity, shattering, and dormancy), except for a possible tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium. However, should this occurs, current weed control practices, such as tillage or other registered herbicides, would be an effective means of controlling the hybrid plants.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to rice lines LLRICE06 and LLRICE62 other than that conferred by resistance to glufosinate ammonium herbicides. Resistance to glufosinate ammonium will not, in itself, render rice plants weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics were altered by the transformation.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cultivated rice is not listed as a common, serious or principal weed or a weed of current or potential importance in the United States. The transformed rice is an annual, does not shatter or disperse its seed, and has not acquired extended dormancy.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">During field trials of LLRICE06 and LLRICE62, no toxicity or alteration of population levels were observed for beneficial insects, birds, or other species that frequent the fields. There were no qualitative differences between beneficial species populations present on transgenic and non-transgenic plants. Other than the production of the PAT enzyme, these plants were the same as the commercial rice varieties from which they were produced. The PAT enzyme has been extensively studied, and there have been no indications that it is toxic to organisms. Levels of the three known antinutrients found in rice (trypsin inhibitor, lectin, and phytic acid) were found to be in the expected range for transgenic seeds. Based on these findings, it was determined that these transgenic rice lines did not have a significant adverse impact on organisms beneficial to plants or agriculture, nontarget organisms, and were not expected to impact on threatened or endangered species.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">LLRICE06 and LLRICE62 have no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend their use beyond the current geographic range of rice production. The cultivation of rice transformation events LLRICE06 and LLRICE62 would be equivalent to non-transgenic rice cultivars with respect to environmental impact.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:28:19'),
(46, 31, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic papaya lines 55-1 and 63-1 were field tested in the United States (1991 through 1996). Extensive testing of papaya lines 55-1 and 63-1 in laboratory, greenhouse, and field experiments, determined that the plants exhibited the typical agronomic characteristics of the parent papaya variety &lsquo;Sunset&rsquo;, with the addition of resistance to PRSV infection. The variation in agronomic characteristics did not differ significantly from that seen in commercial cultivars of papaya. Field trial reports demonstrated that the transformed papaya lines 55-1 and 63-1 had no effect on nontarget organisms or the general environment.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Papaya (<i>Carica papaya</i> L.) plants have different mating systems and may be either dioecious (staminate and pistillate plants) or gynodioecious (hermaphrodite and pistillate plants). Commercial papaya lines are mostly gynodioecious lines and are preferred because of their potential for inbreeding and consequent uniformity. The hermaphroditic plants are generally self-pollinating due to the position of the anthers relative to the stigma such that in commercial production self-pollination occurs without manual assistance or bagging. A low rate of out-crossing still occurs since hermaphrodites tend to produce copious pollen from staminate flowers during most of the year. Additionally, the pistillate plants never produce anthers and are consequently obligate out-crossers. In nature, pollination of papaya occurs through bees, butterflies, and wind.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Papaya is usually described as sexually incompatible with other member of the Carica genus. Initial steps have been taken to develop methods for somatic hybridization of <i>C. papaya</i> with <i>C. stipulata</i> and with <i>C. pubescens</i>, but no hybrid plants have been regenerated to date.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Papaya is the best known member of the Caricaceae, a small dicotyledonous family consisting of four genera. Carica is the largest genus with 23 described species with overlapping distributions in the foothills of the Andes Mountains in northwestern South America, although members of the genus range from southern Brazil, Argentina and Chile to southern Mexico. Most likely, the center of origin for papaya is the Caribbean coast of Central America. United States commercial production of papaya is generally in Hawaii with secondary production in Puerto Rico and southern Florida.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No Carica species is considered a weed, and there is no evidence in the scientific literature to suggest that susceptibility to PRSV is the factor that prevents these plants from being weed pests. Therefore, it seems likely that even if the PRSV-resistance trait could be transferred from line 55-1 or 63-1 to another Carica species, the resultant offspring would not be weed pests.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was concluded that the genes inserted into the transgenic papaya lines 55-1 and 63-1 would not result in any deleterious effects or significant impacts on nontarget organisms, including threatened and endangered species or beneficial organisms. The PRSV coat protein expressed in these papaya lines is found in all PRSV-infected plants, and there are no reports of this protein having any toxic effects. In fact, this viral coat protein is routinely ingested by virtually all animals, including humans, when papaya is consumed. Naturally occurring infections of susceptible papaya varieties result in concentrations of coat proteins far higher than those that occur in the tissues of the transgenic papaya lines 55-1 and 63-1. No direct pathogenic properties, nor any hypothetical mechanisms for pathogenesis toward beneficial organisms, such as bees and earthworms, were identified for papaya lines 55-1 and 63-1.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 22:43:25'),
(47, 46, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic sugar beet line GTSB77 was field tested in the United States (1996 &ndash; 1998). GTSB77 was evaluated extensively and agronomic data showed that there were no significant changes in the number of seeds produced, germination characteristics, final stand, over-wintering capability, or pathogen susceptibility.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Sugar beet is an outcrossing, largely wind pollinated, plant. It is normally a biennial, developing a large succulent root in the first year and a seed stalk the second. Certain conditions such as low temperatures after planting and longer day length may induce bolting and produce a seed stalk during the first growing season. Beet is also highly sensitive to frost and a poor competitor with other plants.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">During the reproductive phase, large amounts of pollen are produced which can travel long distances. The genus Beta, including the wild relatives, is divided into four sections: Beta, Corolinnae, Procumbentes, and Nanae. Sugar beet hybridizes freely with all members of the section Beta and the resulting progeny are fertile but hybridization is unlikely with other members of the Chenopodiaceae family. Hybrids between sugar beet and members of the other three sections do not naturally occur without human intervention. Assuming proximity, synchrony of flowering and suitable conditions, <i>B. vulgaris</i> may freely hybridize with other varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">During production of GTSB77, for purposes other than seed production, plants are harvested before the natural onset of the reproductive phase in the same manner that unmodified cultivars are grown. Since it is uncommon for sugar beets to bolt, except in fields or plots grown specifically for seed production, there is little opportunity for uncontrolled pollen flow due to adequate isolation distances enforced by seed certification agencies.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Specific concerns have been raised about potential outcrossing with subsp. macrocarpa, in the Imperial Valley, California. Isozyme studies indicated the introgression of genes from commercial sugar beets has occurred, although other reports show that gene flow between these two plant populations is not likely due to non-synchronous flowering periods, sterile F1 hybrids, and poor growth in F2 hybrids.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was determined that the transgenic sugar beet line GTSB77 was no more likely to become a weed than herbicide tolerant cultivars currently in use or that can be developed by traditional breeding techniques. GTSB77 was unlikely to increase the weediness potential of any other cultivated plant or native wild species with which it may interbreed.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Sugar beet plants are not a serious weed, although sugar beets have escaped cultivation and their progeny have persisted in the environment for many years. Occasionally, sugar beet volunteers may arise from the presence of wild beet, the bolting of fodder beet plants, the development of groundkeepers which arise initially from vegetative growth of beet crowns or tops left after harvest or the germination of seed (which may be dormant in the soil for up to 10 years). Volunteer plants may be controlled by mechanical means or the use of registered herbicides that can be used on sugar beet volunteers.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Sugar beet plants have escaped from past commercial cultivation in the San Francisco Bay area and persist to this day. However, transgene movement via pollen to these plants is highly unlikely as sugar beets are no longer in commercial production in the Bay area. Other populations of sexually compatible plants are located in the Imperial Valley of California, but no wild populations exist outside of California.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The movement of the glyphosate tolerance trait from GTSB77 to any other sexually compatible plant should not have a significant impact as the glyphosate tolerance would not confer any competitive advantage to these plants, especially if glyphosate is not applied to these plants. This would only occur in managed ecosystems where glyphosate is applied for broad-spectrum weed control, or in plant varieties developed to exhibit glyphosate tolerance and in which glyphosate is used to control weeds. As with glyphosate tolerant sugar beet volunteers, these individuals, should they arise, would be controlled using other available chemical means. Hybrids, if they developed, could potentially result in the loss of glyphosate as a tool to control these species. However, this can be avoided by the use of sound crop management practices including not using the same herbicide every year.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was concluded that the genes inserted into the transgenic sugar beet line GTSB77 would not result in any deleterious effects or significant impacts on nontarget organisms, including threatened and endangered species or beneficial organisms. The enzyme EPSPS that confers glyphosate resistance is from a commonly occurring soil bacterium, <i>A. tumefaciens</i>, and is similar to the gene that is normally present in sugar beets and is not known to have any toxic properties. Field observations of line GTSB77 revealed no negative effects on nontarget organisms. The lack of known toxicity for this enzyme suggests no potential for deleterious effects on beneficial organisms such as bees and earthworms. The high specificity of the enzyme for its substrates makes it unlikely that the introduced enzyme would metabolize endogenous substrates to produce compounds toxic to beneficial organisms.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The chimeric-GOX fusion protein (Protein 34550) was unlikely to pose any risk. First, the amount was not detectable in plant tissue, it had no enzymatic activity, and the protein it was fused to is a normal constituent of sugar beets. Additionally, the scoreable marker protein, beta-D-glucuronidase, is a well-characterized protein with no known toxicity.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Genetically engineered line GTSB77 sugar beet is no more likely to become a weed than herbicide tolerant cultivars currently in use or that can be developed by traditional breeding techniques. It is unlikely to increase the weediness potential of any other cultivated plant or native wild species with which it may interbreed. It will not harm non-target organisms and there is no potential impact of line GTSB77 on biodiversity.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:05:58'),
(48, 45, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic sugar beet line T120-7 was field tested in the United States (1994, 1996, 1997) and in Canada, Western and Eastern Europe, and in the former Soviet Union. T120-7 was evaluated extensively and no differences were found in the agronomic characteristics, plant emergence and seedling vigour for line T120-7 compared to non-transformed counterpart beets and standard commercial sugar beet varieties growing in nearby fields.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Sugar beet is an outcrossing, largely wind pollinated plant. It is normally a biennial, developing a large succulent root in the first year and a seed stalk the second. Certain conditions such as low temperatures after planting and longer day length may induce bolting and produce a seed stalk during the first growing season. Beet is also highly sensitive to frost and a poor competitor with other plants.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">During the reproductive phase, large amounts of pollen are produced which can travel long distances. The genus Beta, including the wild relatives, is divided into four sections: Beta, Corolinnae, Procumbentes, and Nanae. Sugar beet hybridizes freely with all members of the section Beta and the resulting progeny are fertile but hybridization is unlikely with other members of the Chenopodiaceae family. Hybrids between sugar beet and members of the other three sections do not naturally occur without human intervention. Assuming proximity, synchrony of flowering and suitable conditions, <i>B. vulgaris</i> may freely hybridize with other varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">During production of T120-7, for purposes of than seed production, plants are harvested before the natural onset of the reproductive phase in the same manner that unmodified cultivars are grown. Since it is uncommon for sugar beets to bolt, except in fields or plots grown specifically for seed production, there is little opportunity for uncontrolled pollen flow due to adequate isolation distances enforced by seed certification agencies.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Specific concerns have been raised about potential outcrossing with subsp. macrocarpa, in the Imperial Valley, California. Isozyme studies indicated the introgression of genes from commercial sugar beets has occurred, although other reports show that gene flow between these two plant populations is not likely due to non-synchronous flowering periods, sterile F1 hybrids, and poor growth in F2 hybrids.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was determined that the transgenic sugar beet line T120-7 was no more likely to become a weed than herbicide tolerant cultivars currently in use or that can be developed by traditional breeding techniques. T120-7 was unlikely to increase the weediness potential of any other cultivated plant or native wild species with which it may interbreed.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Sugar beet plants are not a serious weed, although sugar beets have escaped cultivation and their progeny have persisted in the environment for many years. Occasionally, sugar beet volunteers may arise from the presence of wild beet, the bolting of fodder beet plants, the development of groundkeepers, which arise initially from vegetative growth of beet crowns or tops left after harvest or the germination of seed (which may be dormant in the soil for up to 10 years). Volunteer plants may be controlled by mechanical means or the use of registered herbicides that can be used on sugar beet volunteers.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Sugar beet plants have escaped from past commercial cultivation in the San Francisco Bay area and persist to this day. However, transgene movement via pollen to these plants is highly unlikely as sugar beets are no longer in commercial production in the Bay area. Other populations of sexually compatible plants are located in the Imperial Valley of California, but no wild populations exist outside of California.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The movement of the glufosinate tolerance trait from T120-7 to any other sexually compatible plant should not have a significant impact as the glufosinate tolerance would not confer any competitive advantage to these plants, especially if glufosinate is not applied to these plants. This would only occur in managed ecosystems where glufosinate is applied for broad-spectrum weed control, or in plant varieties developed to exhibit glufosinate tolerance and in which glufosinate is used to control weeds. As with glufosinate tolerant sugar beet volunteers, these individuals, should they arise, would be controlled using other available chemical means. Hybrids, if they developed, could potentially result in the loss of glufosinate as a tool to control these species. However, this can be avoided by the use of sound crop management practices including not using the same herbicide every year.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects </b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was concluded that the genes inserted into the transgenic sugar beet line T120-7 would not result in any deleterious effects or significant impacts on nontarget organisms, including threatened and endangered species or beneficial organisms. Field observations of event T120-7 revealed no negative effects on nontarget organisms. The lack of known toxicity for the introduced PAT enzyme suggests no potential for deleterious effects on beneficial organisms such as bees and earthworms. The high specificity of the enzyme for its substrates makes it unlikely that the introduced enzyme would metabolize endogenous substrates to produce compounds toxic to beneficial organisms.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Genetically engineered event T120-7 sugar beet is no more likely to become a weed than lines developed by traditional breeding techniques. It is unlikely to increase the weediness potential of any other cultivated plant or native wild species with which it may interbreed. It will not harm threatened and endangered species and non-target organisms. It was concluded that there was no potential impact of event T120-7 on biodiversity.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:03:47');
INSERT INTO `gmcropdatabase_events_esafeties` (`id`, `eventId`, `description`, `created`, `updated`) VALUES
(49, 64, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The commercial standard carnation varieties are generally male sterile and rarely produce anthers. In fertile flowers, little pollen is produced, which can only be transferred by insects. In commercial carnation production, outcrossing is unlikely as flowers are cut before opening. Should flowers open, only certain insects are easily able to access nectaries in flowers and there are very few opportunities for this to occur during transit and sale. Furthermore, carnations plants require 6 weeks for seed development. A genetically modified cut carnation flower lasts only 3-4 weeks.<br />\nMany Dianthus species occur as common wildflowers. There has never been any evidence of hybridization between carnation and these species, nor after decades of cultivation have carnations been found in the wild. The biology of carnation is such that there are no realistic ways for the genetically modified plants to escape from cultivation and become established as populations in the wild, or for gene dispersal from the genetically modified carnation to occur.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Genetically modified carnation lines 4, 11, 15, 16, and derived lines, have little potential to become weeds. After decades of cultivation, carnations have never been found in the wild. Carnation has no weedy characteristics and is not closely related to known weeds.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The risk of transferring genetic traits from transgenic carnation lines 4, 11, 15, 16, to species in unmanaged environments was not considered to be significant. The genetically modified carnation lines 4, 11, 15, 16, are intended for cultivation by growers, flower auctions, flower wholesalers, retailers and breeders. Plants are sold as flowers, cuttings or whole plants.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:38:44'),
(50, 63, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The commercial standard carnation varieties are generally male sterile and rarely produce anthers. In fertile flowers, little pollen is produced, and cross-pollination is only via insects. In commercial carnation production, outcrossing is unlikely as flowers are cut before opening. Should flowers open, only certain insects are easily able to access nectaries in flowers and there are very few opportunities for this to occur during transit and sale. Furthermore, carnations plants require 6 weeks for seed development. A genetically modified cut carnation flower lasts only 3-4 weeks.<br />\nMany Dianthus species occur as common wildflowers. There has never been any evidence of hybridization between carnation and these species, nor after decades of cultivation have carnations been found in the wild. The biology of carnation is such that there are no realistic ways for the genetically modified plants to escape from cultivation and become established as populations in the wild, or for gene dispersal from the genetically modified carnation to occur.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Genetically modified carnation lines 959A, 988A, 1226A, 1351A, 1363A, and 1400A, and derived lines, have little potential to become weeds. After decades of cultivation, carnations have never been found in the wild. Carnation has no weedy characteristics and is not closely related to known weeds.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The risk of transferring genetic traits from transgenic carnation lines 959A, 988A, 1226A, 1351A, 1363A, and 1400A to species in unmanaged environments was insignificant. These transgenic carnation lines are intended for cultivation by growers, flower auctions, flower wholesalers, retailers and breeders. Plants are sold as flowers, cuttings or whole plants.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:37:52'),
(51, 28, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Since pollen production and viability were unchanged by the genetic modification resulting in TC1507, pollen dispersal by wind and outcropping frequency should be no different than for other maize varieties. Gene exchange between TC1507 maize and other cultivated maize varieties will be similar to that which occurs naturally between cultivated maize varieties at the present time. In Canada and the United States, where there are no plant species closely-related to maize in the wild, the risk of gene flow to other species appears remote. Feral species related to corn, as found within Canada or the United States, cannot be pollinated due to differences in chromosome number, phenology (periodicity or timing of events within an organism&rsquo;s life cycle as related to climate, <i>e.g.</i>, flowering time) and habitat.<br />\nMaize (<i>Zea mays</i> ssp. mays) freely hybridizes with annual teosinte (<i>Zea mays</i> ssp. mexicana) when in close proximity. These wild maize relatives are native to Central America and are not present in Canada and the United States, except for special plantings. Tripsacum, another genus related to Zea, contains sixteen species, of which twelve are native to Mexico and Guatemala. Three species of Tripsacum have been reported in the continental United States: <i>T. dactyloides, T. floridanum</i> and <i>T. lanceolatum</i>. Of these, <i>T. dactyloides</i>, Eastern Gama Grass, is the only species of widespread occurrence and of any agricultural importance. It is commonly grown as a forage grass and has been the subject of some agronomic improvement (<i>i.e.</i>, selection and classical breeding). <i>T. floridanum</i> is known from southern Florida and <i>T. lanceolatum</i> is present in the Mule Mountains of Arizona and possibly southern New Mexico. Even though some Tripsacum species occur in areas where maize is cultivated, gene introgression from maize under natural conditions is highly unlikely, if not impossible. Hybrids of Tripsacum species with <i>Zea mays</i> are difficult to obtain outside of the controlled conditions of laboratory and greenhouse. Seed obtained from such crosses are often sterile or progeny have greatly reduced fertility.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to TC1507 that would render maize weedy or invasive of natural habitats, since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics were modified. Cultivated maize is unlikely to establish in non-cropped habitats and there have been no reports of maize surviving as a weed. <i>Zea mays</i> is not invasive and is a weak competitor with very limited seed dispersal.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The history of use and literature suggest that <i>Bt</i> proteins are not toxic to humans, other vertebrates, and beneficial insects.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Maize inbreds and hybrids expressing the Cry1F protein were compared to their non-transformed counterpart for relative abundance of beneficial arthropods, including: lady beetles (<i>Cycloneda munda</i> &amp; <i>Coleomegilla maculata</i>), predacious Carabids, brown lacewings (Hemerobiidae), green lacewings (<i>Chrysoperla plorabunda</i>), minute pirate bugs (<i>Orius insidiosus</i>), assassin bugs (Reduviidae), damsel bugs (Nabidae), Ichneumonid and Braconids (parasitic wasps), damselflies and dragonflies, and spiders. Visual counts showed no significant differences between the number of arthropods collected in TC1507 maize and the non-transgenic isolines with two exceptions. There was a significantly greater number of lady beetles in the 1507 line (1.2 per test plant vs. 0.6 per control plant), and significantly more Orius were found in the 1507 line then the non-transgenic line on two of the three sample dates. In summary, these field studies demonstrated that Cry1F had neither a direct nor an indirect effect on the beneficial arthropod populations.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Specific feeding trials were also carried out with a number of non-target species, including honeybee larvae and adults, green lacewing, parasitic hymenopterans, ladybird beetles, daphnia (aquatic invertebrates), earthworm, and collembola (soil dwelling invertebrates). In all cases there were no observable adverse effects.<br />\nAn additional study was conducted on the effect of Cry1F on neonate monarch butterfly larvae when fed a 10,000 ng/mL diet dose. First instar larval weight and mortality were recorded after seven days of feeding. Although there was some growth inhibition, there was no mortality to monarchs fed the 10,000 ng/mL diet, the highest rate tested. Since pollen doses equivalent to 10,000 ng/mL diet are not likely to occur on milkweed leaves in nature, it can be concluded that Cry1F protein will not pose a risk to monarchs.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">TC1507 has no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of maize production. Since the risk of outcrossing with wild relatives in Canada and the United States is remote, it was determined that risk of transferring genetic traits from TC1507 maize to species in unmanaged environments was insignificant.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Other Considerations</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In order to prolong the effectiveness of plant-expressed <i>Bt</i> toxins, and the microbial spray formulations of these same toxins, regulatory authorities in Canada and United States have required developers to implement specific Insect Resistant Management (IRM) Programs. These programs are mandatory for all transgenic <i>Bt</i>-expressing plants, including TC1507 maize, and require that growers plant a certain percentage of their acreage to non-transgenic varieties in order to reduce the potential for selecting <i>Bt</i>-resistant insect populations. Details on the specific design and requirements of individual IRM programs are published by the relevant regulatory authority.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 22:37:24'),
(52, 76, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">There are no sexually compatible species for rice in Canada. The wild &ldquo;rice&rdquo; which does occur in Canada (<i>Zizania aquatica</i>) is not sexually compatible with domesticated rice, <i>Oryza sativa</i>. In addition, these herbicide-tolerant lines will not be cultivated in Canada and if released, would not persist in the environment.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Rice is not adapted to the environmental conditions encountered in Canada. The vegetative vigour, time to maturity, and seed production, for these herbicide-tolerant lines were within the normal range of these parameters as measured for other commercial rice varieties. In unmanaged ecosystems, the herbicide-tolerant trait will not confer a competitive advantage and will not, in itself, render rice more weedy or invasive of natural habitats.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">There are no anticipated changes in ecological toxicity that would adversely impact on other organisms within managed or unmanaged ecosystems.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">As these lines did not display altered weediness or plant pest potential, or potential to adversely impact non-target organisms, and will not be cultivated in Canada, there was no anticipated impact on biodiversity in Canada.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:46:12'),
(53, 74, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b><br />\r\nPollen production and viability were unchanged in line NK603 and, therefore, pollen dispersal by wind and outcrossing frequency should be no different than for other maize varieties. Gene exchange between NK603 and other cultivated maize varieties will be similar to that which occurs naturally between cultivated maize varieties at the present time. In Canada and the United States, where there are few plant species closely-related to maize in the wild, the risk of gene flow to other species is remote. Cultivated maize, <i>Zea mays</i> L. subsp. mays, is sexually compatible with other members of the genus Zea, and to a much lesser degree with members of the genus Tripsacum. None of the sexually compatible relatives of maize in Canada or the United States are considered to be weeds in these countries and it is therefore unlikely that introgression of the CP4 EPSPS gene would provide a selective advantage to these populations as they would not be routinely subject to herbicide treatments.</p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b><br />\r\nNo competitive advantage was conferred to NK603, other than that conferred by resistance to glyphosate herbicide. Resistance to glyphosate containing herbicides will not, in itself, render maize weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics were modified.<br />\r\nCultivated maize is unlikely to establish in non-cropped habitats and there have been no reports of maize surviving as a weed. In agriculture, maize volunteers are not uncommon but are easily controlled by mechanical means or by using herbicides that are not based on glyphosate as appropriate. <i>Zea mays</i> is not invasive and is a weak competitor with very limited seed dispersal.</p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b><br />\r\nNo environmentally toxic components were detected in NK603. CP4 EPSPS protein is not a known toxin and analogous proteins are found in all plants and microorganisms. There are no anticipated adverse effects of NK603 on non-target organisms that would be different from conventional maize varieties.</p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b><br />\r\nMaize line NK603 has no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of maize production. Since the risk of outcrossing with wild relatives in Canada and the United States is remote, it was determined that the risk of transferring genetic traits from NK603 to species in unmanaged environments was not a significant concern.</p>\r\n\r\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Other Considerations</b><br />\r\nConsideration was made as to whether the introduction of crops tolerant to glyphosate would result in a significant increase in the use of the herbicide, and lead to the evolution of glyphosate resistant weeds. It was determined that the risk of increasing the selection of glyphosate tolerant weeds was low and could be mitigated through the use of other approved herbicides with a mode of action dissimilar to glyphosate.</p>\r\n', NULL, '2013-09-02 17:06:58'),
(54, 4, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The Oxy-235 line was field tested in Canada from 1992 to 1996 and assessed for a number of agronomic characteristics, including seed yield, days to maturity, silique shattering, and overwintering capacity. In comparison with non-transgenic commercial canola varieties, all of these parameters were within the normal range of expression. Stress adaptation was evaluated, including resistance to major <i>B. napus</i> pests such as the fungal pathogen <i>Leptosphaeria maculans</i> (blackleg) and the susceptibility of Oxy-235 was within the ranges currently displayed by commercial varieties. The only significant difference between Oxy-235 canola and the parental non-transformed variety was that Oxy-235 exhibited field tolerance to ioxynil and bromoxynil.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>B. napus</i> plants are known to outcross up to 30% with other plants of the same species, and potentially with plants of related species <i>B. rapa</i>, <i>B. juncea</i>, <i>B. carinata</i>, <i>B. nigra</i>, <i>Diplotaxis muralis</i>, <i>Raphanus raphanistrum</i>, and <i>Erucastrum gallicum</i>. Previous studies have demonstrated that gene flow is most likely to occur with <i>B. rapa</i>.<br />\nThe <i>bxn</i> gene is not expected to confer an ecological advantage to potential hybrid offspring. If tolerant individuals arose through interspecific or intergeneric hybridization, the novel trait would confer no competitive advantage to these plants unless these populations were routinely subject to herbicide treatments. This may occur in managed ecosystems where oxynil herbicides are applied for broad spectrum weed control, or when used to control weeds in crop plants which exhibit herbicide tolerance such as cereals, or plant varieties genetically engineered for tolerance. In the event that a tolerant plant survived, the herbicide-tolerant individual would be easily controlled using mechanical and other available chemical means. This can be avoided by the use of sound crop management practices including both crop and herbicide rotations.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to Oxy-235 canola, other than that conferred by resistance to ioxynil and bromoxynil herbicides. Resistance to these herbicides did not confer any pest resistance, alter reproductive biology or change any physiology related to survival. In the event that a tolerant plant survived, the herbicide-tolerant individual would be easily controlled using mechanical and/or alternative herbicides with different modes of action such as 2,4-D and MCPA. It was concluded that Oxy-235 canola had no altered weed or invasiveness potential compared to currently commercialized <i>B. napus</i> varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">It was determined that Oxy-235 did not have a significant adverse impact on interacting organisms including humans. The nitrilase protein expressed in Oxy-235 did not result in altered toxicity or allergenicity properties as determined from studies using simulated digestive fluids, nutritional composition and amino acid sequence homology studies.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Oxy-235 has no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of canola/rapeseed production. Since most related species are only found in agricultural ecosystems, the transfer of novel traits would not have an impact on unmanaged environments. It was determined that the relative impact on biodiversity from Oxy-235 was equivalent to that of currently commercialized canola lines.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 20:39:22'),
(55, 83, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Tobacco is not considered a likely candidate for any significant level of outcrossing. The plant is generally self-pollinated being possessed of tubular flowers and possible insect vectors travel only short distances. In the commercial production of tobacco, flowers are generally removed prior to anthesis and are thus not allowed to shed pollen further decreasing the risk of outcrossing. Tobacco producers do not save seed and certified seed production of Vector 21-41 will occur only in isolation.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>N. trigonophylla, N. repanda</i> and <i>N. bigelovii</i> are indigenous Nicotiania species that are found in the U.S. and are cross-compatible with <i>N. tabacum</i>. None of these species grows in areas in which commercial tobacco production take place.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">No competitive advantage was conferred to Vector 21-41 by the transformation. The plants were not more or less resistant to insect predation than standard tobacco. Tobacco has not shown any potential to become a noxious weed.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The presence of nicotine in tobacco is thought to have evolved as a defense against insect predation. It is known that insects have developed resistance to nicotine, resulting in the need for multiple applications of pesticides on conventional tobacco crops. Vector 21-41 was found to have similar yields to other low alkaloid tobacco cultivars when a standard package of pesticides was applied. With no insect management both Vector 21-41 line and conventional tobacco had no commercial yield when faced with heavy insect pressure. Vector 21-41 did not result in increased pesticide application.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">There is no expected impact on biodiversity from Vector 21-41 tobacco. The line would not be grown outside the areas currently host to tobacco production and the possibility of outcrossing is extremely remote.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Other considerations</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The parent plant Burley 21 LA (low alkaloid) has not been grown for commercial production for some time. The cultivar has been found to have a high susceptibility to blue mold, as does Vector 21-41. As well, the parent line is susceptible to insects and this trait is also noted in Vector 21-41, however, neither line requires more stringent pest control than is normally used in tobacco cultivation.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:54:54'),
(56, 87, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Wheat line AP602CL is not intended for cultivation in Canada and there are no wild Triticum species in North America. There are no known naturally occurring hybrids between wheat and its only weedy relative occurring in Canada, <i>Agropyron repens</i>. Hybridization has been known to occur with <i>Aegilops cylindrica</i> which is present as a weed of winter wheat in the United States, but fertile offspring are not readily produced. Gene flow from AP602CL to wild or weedy species in Canada is very unlikely.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Wheat plants can occur as volunteers in years following the cultivation of a wheat crop and are usually eliminated by the use of herbicides or mechanical means. The imadozolinone tolerance trait does not confer competitive advantage to AP602CL. Volunteers persisting after a crop can be controlled with the use of non-imadozolinone herbicides and/or mechanical means. Due to this and the stated intent not to cultivate AP602CL in Canada, there is no altered weed or invasiveness potential of this line compared to conventional varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">BASF submitted data indicating that the modified AHAS enzyme was substantially equivalent to its unmodified counterpart. The native AHAS enzyme does not confer resistance to agricultural pests and is found in many plants and micro-organisms. It is not a known toxin. The modified AHAS enzyme did not alter the biosynthesis of amino acids. As the line is not intended for cultivation in Canada, there were no expected impacts of AP602CL on non-target organisms due to the modified AHAS enzyme.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The use of a particular herbicide may provide selection pressure for the development of herbicide tolerant weeds. Agricultural extension officers should promote careful management practices for growers who use AP602CL to minimize the development of imidazolinone-tolerant weed populations.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:58:20'),
(57, 75, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The genetic insertion which resulted in MON 863 did not change its physiological characteristics of pollen production and pollen viability nor were there any changes in the plant&rsquo;s sexual compatibility with other maize varieties. Pollen dispersal and outcropping frequency should be equivalent to that of untransformed maize lines, therefore gene exchange between MON 863 maize and other maize varieties will be similar to that which occurs between non-transformed lines. There are no wild relatives to maize in Canada or the United States, making gene flow to wild species extremely remote.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Maize (<i>Zea mays </i>ssp. <i>mays</i>) freely hybridizes with annual teosinte (<i>Zea mays</i> ssp. <i>mexicana</i>) when in close proximity. These wild maize relatives are native to Central America but are not present in Canada and the United States, except for special plantings. Tripsacum, another genus related to Zea, contains sixteen species, of which twelve are native to Mexico and Guatemala. <i>Tripsacum floridanum</i> (Florida gamagrass) is native to the southern tip of Florida. Outcrossing with Tripsacum species is not known to occur in the wild and it is only with extreme difficulty that maize can be crossed with Tripsacum. The lack of compatible wild relatives in Canada and the maize &ndash;growing regions in the United States makes the possibility of gene flow into wild species in these areas very remote.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The flowering period, vegetative vigour, time to maturity and seed production of MON 863 were within the normal range currently found in commercial maize hybrids. Maize does not possess the potential to become weedy due to traits such as a lack of seed dormancy, the non-shattering nature of maize cobs and the poor competitive ability of seedlings. Resistance to maize rootworm does not, in itself, render maize weedy or invasive of natural habitats as none of the reproductive or growth characteristics were modified. It was determined that it is very unlikely that MON863 would become a weedy pest of agriculture.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Adverse Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The <i>Bt</i> protein expressed in maize MON 863 (Cry3Bb1) was shown to be equivalent to microbial <i>Bt</i> used in sprays for over thirty years. The history of use and literature suggest that the bacterial <i>Bt</i> protein is not toxic to humans, other vertebrates and non-coleopteran invertebrates. This protein is active only against specific coleopteran insects. There are no coleopteran species listed as threatened or endangered in Canada or the United States.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Field studies indicated that MON863 did not have a negative effect on the abundance of non-target organisms compared to a non-<i>Bt</i> hybrid. Species studied included arthropods, earthworms and soil microbes. Coleopteran families including Carabidae, Staphylinidae and Coccinellidae were observed. Consideration was also given to the exposure of fireflies (family Lampyridae) to MON 863 since fireflies are coleopterans. It was concluded that the possibility of firefly exposure to Cry3Bb1 protein from MON 863 would be very unlikely as these insects generally do not occur sub-surface and do not feed on maize.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Feeding trials on non-target invertebrates, including honeybees, ladybird beetles, daphnia, collembola and earthworms, were also conducted. In addition, feeding trials were conducted on the non-target vertebrates such catfish and quail. MON 863 was demonstrated to be safe to these indicator species. MON 863 also did not demonstrate an increased level of anti-nutritional factors such as trypsin inhibitor and phytic acid when compared to unmodified control lines.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">When compared with currently commercialized maize lines, MON 863 did not present an elevated risk to or impact on interacting organisms, including humans, with the exception of certain target coleopterans.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Potential Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">MON 863 has no novel characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of maize production. Since the risk of outcrossing in the United States and Canada is remote, it was determined that the risk of transfer of novel traits to unmanaged environments was insignificant. The potential impact on biodiversity of MON 863 was judged to be equivalent to its unmodified counterparts.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Other Considerations</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In Canada, the authorization for unconfined release into the environment and livestock feed use of MON 863 was limited to one year initially. Renewal of the one year authorization was conditional upon the submission of additional information requested by the CFIA. This additional information included a new beneficial insect study as the original study protocol for toxicity of the Cry3Bb1 protein to green lacewing larvae (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) was not of an optimal design. The renewal of the permit was granted in 2004.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In addition, the use of MON 863 in unconfined releases is contingent upon the implementation of specific insect resistance management (IRM) plans in Canada and the United States. IRM strategies are required to prolong the effectiveness of plant-expressed <i>Bt</i> toxins and the microbial spray formulations of these toxins. These programs are mandatory for all transgenic <i>Bt</i>-expressing plants, including MON 863 maize, and require that growers plant a minimum of 20 percent of their acreage to non-transgenic varieties in order to reduce the potential for selecting <i>Bt</i>-resistant insect populations. The refuge acres must be planted adjacent to or within the <i>Bt</i> crop. Details on the specific design and requirements of individual IRM programs are published by the relevant regulatory authority.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-30 12:29:05'),
(58, 77, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cotton (<i>Gossypium hirsutum</i>) is mainly a self-pollinating plant, but pollen is also routinely transferred by insects, particularly bumblebees and honey bees. The pollen is heavy and sticky and the range of natural crossing is limited. Outcrossing rates of up to 28% to other cotton cultivars grown directly adjacent to the pollen source have been observed under field conditions when sufficient insect pollinators have been present. The rate of outcrossing declines rapidly with increased distance from the pollen source. When cotton line MON 15985 (Bollgard II) is grown in proximity with other cotton cultivars and sufficient insect pollinators are present and active, the possibility exists for hybridization to occur between line MON 15985 and other cotton cultivars.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In the United States, species compatible with line MON 15985 and other transgenic cottons include <i>G. hirsutum</i> (wild or under cultivation), <i>G. barbadens</i>e (cultivated Pima cotton), and <i>G. tomentosum</i>. It was reported that gene movement from <i>G. hirsutum</i> to <i>G. barbadense</i> may be possible given suitable conditions, while gene transfer to <i>G. tomentosum</i> is less probable due to chromosomal incompatibility, non-synchronous flowering periods and a lack of common pollinators. Populations of wild Gossypium species occur in southern Florida (wild <i>G. hirsutum</i>), Hawaii (<i>G. tomentosum</i>), Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, however, to reduce to potential for gene flow to wild species, the conditions of registration for cotton line MON 15985 include a prohibition on planting of event MON 15985 south of Route 60 (Tampa) in Florida and prohibition of commercial cultivation of the line in Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These prohibitions, along with the different breeding systems and genome incompatibility in <i>Gossypium</i> species contribute to a low likelihood of gene transfer in the field Hybrids resulting from artificial crosses between cotton and wild species are generally sterile, unstable and of poor fitness.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cultivated <i>Gossypium hirsutum</i> is not typically considered a weed species in the United States or other countries, although it is listed as a potential weed in southern Florida. Cotton does not tolerate cold conditions limiting its potential to survive the winter to southern Florida, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The transformation that resulted in event MON 15985 did not confer any ecological advantage to MON 15985 cotton or its offspring that would increase its potential for weediness beyond that of currently cultivated commercial varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Data collected from field trials conducted in the United States, Puerto Rico, Argentina, South Africa, Costa Rica, and Australia indicated that the agronomic performance of event MON 15985 was similar to the parental cotton line. There were no reports of increased weediness in the parent line DP50B (MON 531 hybrid), a <i>Bt</i>-cotton engineered to express Cry1Ac protein, during its five years of commercial cultivation history in the United States. These data were used to determine that event MON 15985 did not pose any increased risk of weediness that was substantially different from that of conventional cultivars.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-target Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Studies were conducted to determine whether beneficial insects (ladybird beetle, adult and larval honeybees, collembola, green lacewing, parasitic wasp and earthworm) were susceptible to the Cry2Ab2 protein. Due to problems with the control population in the parasitic wasp trial, Monsanto was requested to submit an additional study. However, as parasitic wasps are not likely to come into contact with the Cry2Ab2 protein expressed in cotton, it was determined that the study was not necessary for obtaining regulatory approval for environmental release of cotton line MON 15985.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">For larval honeybees, the No Observed Effects Concentration (NOEC) was found to be greater than 100 ppm, which was expected to exceed the maximum concentration encountered in the field. Adult honeybee NOEC was greater than 68 ppm. Green lacewing larval NOEC was greater than 1100 ppm. All these exceeded the maximum environmental concentration expected in cotton plant tissue (51 ppm).</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In the case of ladybird beetles, the reasonable route of exposure would be through contact with cotton pollen. In the test, the beetles exhibited lethargy and low motility, thus not allowing for the determination of a NOEC. However, the LC50 of Cry2Ab2 protein for ladybird beetles was &gt;4500 ppm, which greatly exceeded the level expected in the field (Cotton event MON 15985 contains both Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab2 proteins. Non-target testing of Cry1Ac protein revealed no hazards. Unexpected synergistic effects from MON 15985 line containing both proteins were not anticipated as no adverse effects were seen in non-target tests of avian, earthworm and collembola species feeding on tissue containing both Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab2 proteins.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The transgenic cotton line MON 15985 has no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographical range of cotton production. Since there is no occurrence of cotton species in Canada and the line is not intended for cultivation in Canada, there will be no transfer of novel traits to unmanaged environments in Canada. Similarly, the risk of gene transfer to wild relatives in the United States was determined to be very remote, thus resulting in an insignificant risk of transferring genetic traits from line MON 15985 to wild species in unmanaged environments.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Other considerations</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In the United States, registration of event MON 15985 plant incorporated protectant (PIP) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was contingent upon the implementation of an Insect Resistance Management (IRM) program. IRM programs are intended to prolong the effectiveness of plant expressed <i>Bt</i> toxins and microbial spray formulations. In the case of cotton line MON 15985, it was proposed by Monsanto that the pyramiding effect of the two <i>Bt</i> toxins, Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab2 would act to delay insect resistance development, which indicated that refuge size could be reduced for this cotton line. Nonetheless, the United States EPA required the same 20% minimum non-<i>Bt</i> cotton refuge for event 15985 as for other <i>Bt</i> cotton events. In addition, monitoring requirements similar to those required for other <i>Bt</i> cotton lines must be adhered to.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-30 12:33:15'),
(59, 82, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Field Testing:</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;LLCotton25 was field tested in the United States and Puerto Rico at 43 locations over three years (1999-2001). These trials were conducted to evaluate the agronomic performance, crop quality, and plant pest potential of LLCotton25. Seed and lint yield and quality data, and evaluations of stand counts, seedling vigour, plant height, height to node ratio, leaf morphology, and plant maturity supported the conclusion that LLCotton25 was as safe to grow as other cotton varieties and did not demonstrate the potential to become a plant health risk.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing:</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;Cotton (<i>G. hirsutum</i>) is mainly a self-pollinating plant, but pollen is also routinely transferred by insects, particularly bumblebees and honey bees. The pollen is heavy and sticky and the range of natural crossing is limited. Outcrossing rates of up to 28% to other cotton cultivars grown directly adjacent to the pollen source have been observed under field conditions when sufficient insect pollinators have been present. The rate of outcrossing declines rapidly with increased distance from the pollen source. Results of outcrossing research trials in the United States have shown that pollen movement decreases rapidly at 12 metres from the pollen source. Nevertheless, certified seed cotton growers in the United States must maintain an isolation distance of 202 metres between fields. If LLCotton25 were to be grown in proximity with other cotton cultivars, and sufficient insect pollinators were present and active, the possibility would exists for introgression of the <i>bar</i> gene into these cultivars.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">In the United States, species genetically compatible with LLCotton25 include <i>G. hirsutum</i> (wild or under cultivation), <i>G. barbadense</i> (cultivated Pima cotton), and <i>G. tomentosum</i>. There have been reports of outcrossing from <i>G. hirsutum</i> to <i>G. barbadense</i> under suitable conditions, such as the presence of suitable pollinators. <i>G. thurberi</i> is another wild species found in the United States, but it is genetically incompatible with <i>G. hirsutum</i>. While <i>G. hirsutum</i> and <i>G. tomentosum</i> are genetically compatible (both possess the AADD genome), the possibility of gene transfer is unlikely due to the non-synchronous flowering periods (day for <i>G. hirstum</i> and night for <i>G. tomentosum</i>), and lack of common pollinators. Populations of wild <i>Gossypium</i> species occur in southern Florida (<i>G. hirsutum</i>), Hawaii (<i>G. tomentosum</i>), Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In other cotton growing areas of the world, species that could intercross with <i>G. hirsutum</i> include <i>G. mustelinum</i> in Brazil, and <i>G. lanceolatum</i> in Mexico.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential:</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;Cultivated <i>Gossypium hirsutum</i> is not typically considered a weed species in the United States or other countries, but it is listed as a potential weed in southern Florida. Although the cotton plant is cultivated as an annual crop, it behaves as a perennial plant in undisturbed environments and suitable climatic conditions. Cotton does not tolerate cold conditions thereby limiting its overwintering potential to southern Florida, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.<br />\nNo competitive advantage was conferred to LLCotton25 other than tolerance to glufosinate ammonium. Tolerance to glufosinate ammonium will not render LLCotton25 weedy or invasive of natural habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics of this line have been modified. In the event of the formation of herbicide tolerant hybrids, there would no competitive advantage conferred on any hybrid progeny in the absence of sustained glufosinate ammonium use. The herbicide tolerant plants could be controlled by cultural, or mechanical means, or by using herbicides other than glufosinate ammonium. The same treatments would apply to cotton volunteers appearing in a following crop.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">LLCotton25 did not exhibit any increased tendency towards weediness, compared to its unmodified parental line, as demonstrated by the nonsignificant differences in parameters such as seed germination, seedling vigour, time to first bloom, and plant maturity.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-target Adverse Effects:</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;Field trial observations of LLCotton25 revealed no negative effects on nontarget organisms; no alterations in the population levels of beneficial insects and birds were observed. LLCotton25 did not display any altered susceptibility to diseases such as <i>Rhizoctonia</i> sp. and <i>Phymototricum</i> sp. leading to the conclusion that its plant pest potential (<i>e.g</i>., increased potential to harbour a disease or become an alternate host) was not changed. A similar conclusion was reached with regard to susceptibility to insect pests such as budworm, boll weevil, thrips, cotton aphids, plant bugs, whiteflies, cutworms, stinkbug, and cotton bollworm. Data on germination, seedling vigour, plant growth and morphology, and agronomic performance indicated no significant differences among LLCotton25, its unmodified parental line, and other cotton cultivars, leading to the conclusion that LLCotton25 would not be expected to grow in new habitats and displace other species. The PAT enzyme is expressed at very low levels in the plant tissues, has a high substrate specificity to L-phosphinothricin, is rapidly degraded in simulated gastric and intestinal fluid conditions, and does not have any sequence similarities to known allergens or toxins. This enzyme is also present in the environment since it is produced by species of the soil bacterium <i>Streptomyces,</i> with no known adverse effects on humans or animals. This information led to the determination that LLCotton25 will not result in altered impacts on non-target organisms, compared to conventional cotton varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity:</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;The genetic modification that resulted in LLCotton25 did not confer any novel phenotypic characteristics that would increase its survival in either unmanaged habitats, or in areas outside the current geographic range of cotton production. Since the potential of gene transfer to wild relatives in the United States is quite minimal, the risk of transferring the herbicide tolerance trait to species in unmanaged habitats is insignificant.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-29 23:53:07'),
(60, 91, '<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Outcrossing</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Species sexually compatible with rice occur in most rice producing areas, especially those within the centre of origin of the cultivated species. In the United the only species known to be compatible with cultivated rice are <i>O. rufipogon</i>, which has been found in a single location in the Everglades of Florida, and red rice (<i>O. sativa</i> ssp.). Due to the relative isolation of <i>O. rufipogon</i>, it is unlikely to hybridize with cultivated rice. Cross-pollination may, however, occur with red rice, under suitable conditions, and form imazethapyr-tolerant hybrids.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">PWC16 has not been modified for cultivation in areas outside of its adapted range. Thus, in areas such as Canada, any unintentional release would not be of concern. Species sexually compatible with cultivated rice do not occur in Canada and any seeds unintentionally released in the environment would not persist due to the unfavourable climate.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Weediness Potential</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">Cultivated rice can become a weed in certain areas where it is grown. PWC16 has not demonstrated characteristics that would confer any competitive advantage, other than tolerance to imazethapyr. Vegetative vigour, time to maturity and seed production of PWC16 were within the normal range of expression of these traits expressed by currently commercialized rice varieties. Tolerance to an herbicide does not, in itself, increase the potential for rice to become weedy or invasive of natural habitats. In the event of the formation of an herbicide tolerant hybrid, there would be no competitive advantage conferred on any hybrid progeny in the absence of sustained imazethapyr use. The imazethapyr-tolerant plant could be controlled by cultural or mechanical means, or by using herbicides other than imazethapyr. PWC16 would not be expected to express greater weediness characteristics than commercial rice varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Secondary and Non-Target Effects</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">The characterization of the modified AHAS gene containing a single base pair change, and the resulting modified enzyme led to the conclusion that the expression of the modified AHAS does not result in altered toxic or allergenic properties. The AHAS enzyme is not a known toxin, does not confer resistance to agricultural pests and is present in plants and micro-organisms with a history of safe use. Based on this information, it was determined that PWC16 will not result in altered impacts on non-target organisms, compared to conventional rice varieties.</p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impact on Biodiversity</b></p>\n\n<p style="text-align: justify;">PWC16 has no novel phenotypic characteristics that would extend its use beyond the current geographic range of rice production. The novel herbicide-tolerant trait could, however, be transferred to unmanaged areas in the United States where species sexually compatible with cultivated rice occur. The herbicide-tolerant trait, in itself, will not render any hybrids weedier than conventional rice-wild species hybrids. The line has also been found safe to non-target organisms and did not display altered plant pest potential since the agronomic and biological characteristics were within the normal range of conventional rice varieties. Furthermore, the novel herbicide-tolerant trait has not altered the ability of PWC16 to persist in areas outside of rice growing areas, such as Canada.</p>\n', NULL, '2013-08-30 00:04:20');
