Canada
September 20, 2004
Canadian Food Inspection
Agency
Animal Products Direcorate
Animal Health and Production Division
Feed Section
Revisions to
Regulatory Directives Dir94-08 “Assessment Criteria for
Determining Environmental Safety of Plants with Novel Traits”
and Dir95-03 “Guidelines for the Assessment of Livestock Feeds
from Plants with Novel Traits”
SOURCE:
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/feebet/bio/revisione.shtml
The Plant Biosafety Office (PBO)
of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
is responsible for regulating the release of plants with novel
traits (PNTs)
into the Canadian environment, while the Feed Section,
CFIA,
regulates novel feeds, which include livestock feed derived from
PNTs. The
guidance for criteria to be considered in the assessment of
safety of a PNT
and a novel feed is outlined in
CFIA’s
Regulatory Directives Dir94-08 “Assessment Criteria for
Determining Environmental Safety of Plants with Novel Traits”
and Dir95-03 “Guidelines for the Assessment of Livestock Feeds
from Plants with Novel Traits.”
The
PBO and the
Feed Section have updated their Regulatory Directives Dir94-08
and Dir95-03 to reflect advances in knowledge and technology. In
keeping with the
CFIA's
commitment to openness and to public involvement, the
CFIA
convened a
consultation on May 29-31, 2002 to solicit expert and
stakeholder input on proposed revisions to
CFIA’s
Dir95-03 and Dir94-08. In addition the draft revisions of
Dir94-08 and Dir95-03 were posted for public comment on the
CFIA
web site from May 27 to July 25, 2003. From this consultation
process comments were received from individuals, farmer's
organizations, industry, academia, public interest groups,
consumers associations, trade organizations, and government
research and regulatory bodies. Comments and recommendations
from the respondents on the draft revisions of Dir94-08 and
Dir95-03 have been carefully considered and have contributed to
the final version of Dir94-08 and Dir95-03. The
PBO and the
Feed Section have worked together to harmonize their guidelines
particularly in the areas of definitions, molecular
characterization requirements and novelty triggers. Please note
that the title of Dir95-03 has been changed to “Guidelines for
the Assessment of Novel Feeds: Plant Sources.”
Dir94-08 and Dir95-03
incorporate current knowledge and will be updated as appropriate
to encompass developments as they arise.
The
CFIA
replied directly to authors who submitted written comments
during the consultation period. Several common themes emerged
from the comments received. These areas of common concern are
discussed below.
Inclusion of products of
conventional breeding in the definition of
PNTs and
novel feeds.
Several respondents
questioned why
CFIA regulated the product not the process.
It is the presence of a novel
trait in a plant that triggers regulatory oversight, not the
method used to introduce the trait. Hence the plant rather than
the process is subject to regulatory oversight. As such,
PNTs and
novel feeds may be created by such methods as traditional
breeding, mutagenesis, cell fusion, or recombinant
DNA techniques.
The CFIA
conducts science-based assessments of
PNTs and
novel feeds before they can be released into the environment, or
used as livestock feed, regardless of the method of creation.
This product based approach was recommended as early as 1988,
during a consultation with researchers from industry, academia,
federal and provincial governments. This approach has been
endorsed by the Federal Regulatory Framework for Biotechnology,
approved by the Government of Canada in 1993, and has been
validated by numerous scientific bodies. Indeed, novel traits
with potential significant impacts on natural and managed
ecosystems, such as herbicide tolerances, can be obtained by
traditional breeding techniques, mutagenesis or genetic
engineering. The Canadian regulatory system ensures that all
PNTs and
novel feeds are subject to a safety review before their release
into the environment or use as livestock feed.
Novelty
Clarity was requested on
what constitutes novelty and regulation by the
CFIA.
What if a trait is novel
but poses no risk?
Plant breeders and product
developers are encouraged to consult with the
PBO, the Feed
Section and the Novel Foods Section (Health Canada) in the early
stages of development to determine the novelty of their
products. The novelty of a product is assessed by the developer
based on the characteristics of the novel trait in comparison to
the trait(s) present in stable, cultivated populations of the
plant species in Canada as well those products already in the
market in Canada. Novelty of a modified plant is determined on a
case-by-case basis. In general, a trait would be considered
novel when it is present at a level outside the accepted range
of variation for that trait based on Canadian experience. It is
the responsibility of plant breeders and product developers,
based both on their expertise and relevant scientific literature
reviews, to determine the range of the selected trait in current
crop cultivars for the plant species in Canada. Substantive
changes in agronomic, nutritional and compositional
characteristic(s) of a plant that are outside the accepted range
of variation for a given species, based on Canadian experience,
would trigger regulation.
In order to provide additional
clarity regarding what constitutes novelty, with regard to
regulation as novel plants or feed, further guidance on novelty
was incorporated in Dir94-08 and Dir95-03. Guidance was provided
on intra-specific and inter-specific crosses, intentional trait
stacking and re-transformation/re-mutation. The
CFIA
also held a separate consultation on novelty in March 2004. The
CFIA
will continue to work with developers and plant breeders to
continue the novelty discussion.
The trigger for regulation as a
PNT or a
novel feed is novelty, not risk. While there may not be an
apparent risk associated with a particular
PNT or novel
feed, a given novel product is not familiar or substantially
equivalent to what is currently in use in Canada and this
triggers a safety assessment. The assessments are performed on a
case by case basis and based on valid scientific rationale
certain studies outlined in the guidelines can be waived if they
are not appropriate.
Detection and Identification:
Clarity was requested on
what methodologies and reference material would be required.
Additional information was also requested regarding the use of
this information.
In order to accommodate the
broad range of PNTs/novel
feeds that are developed and submitted for approval in Canada,
guidance regarding the appropriateness of test methodologies for
detection and identification is flexible and determined on a
case by case basis. Suitable methods may be protein,
RNA or
DNA based.
Phenotypic based methods will not be considered suitable
detection methods if they can’t detect and identify a
PNT in a
sample of seed and non-viable grain, or other single ingredient
feed. CFIA
has provided
guidance regarding acceptable detection and identification
methods for PNTs
and livestock feeds derived therefrom. The
CFIA
recommends that plant breeders and developers consult with the
PBO and the
Feed Section prior to submission to determine suitable detection
methods and reference materials. As with all data provided in a
PNT
submission, the PBO
and the Feed Section will evaluate each detection method and
related reference material on a case-by-case basis. The
CFIA
recognizes that some of the information submitted on detection
and identification is considered as confidential business
information by the applicant and this information will be
treated accordingly. The information on detection and
identification will be used to support
PBO and Feed
Section compliance needs, where appropriate. A decision on
approval for unconfined environmental release or livestock feed
use of a PNT/novel
feed will not be granted until appropriate detection and
identification tools are submitted to the
CFIA.
Confidential data provided to
the CFIA
Comments were received
questioning how confidential business information was treated by
the CFIA.
Confidential business
information is protected under the federal Access to Information
Act, section 20. Information that is deemed to be confidential
under this Act will not be released to third parties. If a
request is received for information (e.g.,
Access to Information and Privacy Request,
ATIP)
the Access to Information and Privacy Section,
CFIA,
will consult with the owner of the information, to determine
what information is confidential. Material deemed to be
confidential will not be released to a third party.
Transparency
The regulatory process for
the assessment of PNTs
was criticized as a closed process. Comments were received that
there should be opportunity for public comment on
PNTs
undergoing safety assessments.
The
CFIA
recognizes the value of increased transparency in the regulation
of PNTs and
novel feeds. Currently, the
CFIA
posts lists of all approved
PNTs and
novel feeds derived from
PNTs that
are approved in Canada on the
CFIA
Web site, along with the accompanying decision documents. In
addition, the
CFIA and Health Canada (HC)
launched a pilot project entitled
"The Biotechnology Notices of Submission Project", on
October 21, 2003. The objective of this project is to increase
transparency in the regulation of
PNTs, novel
feeds and novel food products by notifying the public, through
the intermediary of the
CFIA
Web site, of all PNTs,
novel feed and novel food products under review by the
Government of Canada. These submission notices will describe the
novel product and summarize the information provided to the
federal government by the applicant for its safety assessment.
Member companies of CropLife
Canada, the trade association representing developers of
biotechnology-derived plant products for use in agriculture,
have volunteered to provide this information to Canadians in the
form of a "notice of submission". Please note that this project
is voluntary since there are no requirements within the acts and
regulations administered by the
CFIA
and HC which stipulate
that developers must make information regarding their
submissions available to the Canadian public. The public will
also be given the opportunity to voice their comments and
concerns as well as to provide scientific inputs relevant to the
safety assessment of all
PNTs, novel
feeds and novel food products for which a "notice of submission"
has been posted on the
CFIA
Web site.
This pilot project supports the
Government of Canada's commitment towards a greater openness and
increased transparency regarding novel product information and
is in response to the recommendations made by the Royal Society
of Canada's Expert Panel report entitled, "Elements of
Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food
Biotechnology in Canada". The objective of this pilot project is
to increase transparency in the regulation of novel crops, novel
feed and novel food products and is also consistent with advice
given to the Government of Canada by the Canadian Biotechnology
Advisory Committee (CBAC)
in their report on the regulation of food biotechnology.
Additional Comments on the
Revision of Regulatory Directive Dir94-08: “Assessment Criteria
for Determining Environmental Safety of Plants with Novel
Traits”
The following addresses
additional comments expressed by several respondents for which
the PBO felt it was appropriate to provide a generalized answer.
Role of the Pest Management
Regulatory Agency (PMRA)
during the evaluation process of
PNTs
Several respondents
requested clarity on
PMRA
involvement during the evaluation of an unconfined environmental
release application.
During the evaluation of an
unconfined environmental release application for a
PNT
expressing altered pesticidal tolerance or altered pesticidal
properties, the PBO
may solicit the scientific expertise of Health Canada’
PMRA
with respect to the environmental safety of such a
PNT. As
such, the PBO
will share applicant information with
PMRA
on a “need-to-know” basis only. The
PBO, and not
PMRA,
is responsible for carrying out the environmental safety
assessments or regulatory reviews of
PNTs with
altered pesticidal tolerances or properties. In addition, other
scientific experts may also be consulted by the
PBO with
regards to specific scientific issues when conducting an
environmental safety assessment of a
PNT.
Solicited advice, given by either
PMRA
or other consulted scientific experts, will be considered by the
PBO in the
final evaluation of the
PNT for
unconfined environmental release. Where registration of a pest
control product is mandatory, it is the applicant’s
responsibility to meet all the requirements of the Pest
Control Products Act, an act which is administered by
PMRA.
PMRA
is the federal agency responsible for conducting the appropriate
risk and value assessments of pest control products in Canada.
Applicants may wish to refer to the Registration Handbook
for Pest Control Products as a detailed reference guide for
the registration process.
The
PBO continues
to work with
PMRA to consider strategies for the safe and effective
use of herbicides and herbicide tolerant crops in Canada. Safety
issues associated with pesticide use are solely the authority of
the PMRA.
Safety issues arising from the application of new herbicides on
plants expressing novel herbicide tolerance(s) are assessed in
collaboration with
PMRA.
Insect Resistance Management
Some respondents
recommended that the Agency does more to publicize the necessity
and importance of refugia, while others disagreed that
IRM
plans should be mandatory for all plants with insect resistance,
especially if the novel protein is not the same used as in
commercial products.
IRM
plans are intended to significantly reduce or delay the
development of resistance in insects to the expressed novel
compound in crops. The poor deployment of insect resistant crops
could result in the early development of insect resistance and
rapid loss of that technology’s utility. As part of its
environmental safety assessment, the
PBO will
consider the impact of a
PNT on
agro-ecosystem sustainability. The development of resistance in
insects to novel compounds due to the non-adoption of effective
IRM
plans could have significant implications on sustainable
agriculture if more growers lose the use of less toxic
management tools. This is particularly important if insects
develop cross resistance to a plant expressing a pesticide as
has been seen with some
Bt products.
A stewardship plan to address
IRM
strategies must be included in the application for unconfined
environmental release. Communication to growers and seed
distributors is an integral component of the stewardship plan
and as such, part of the developer’s responsibility is to ensure
that educational tools on
IRM
strategies are developed and provided to growers, district
managers and field managers. Other essential components of the
stewardship plan include close monitoring of crop fields for the
presence of resistant populations of insects and the development
of mitigation measures in the event resistant populations are
identified.
Herbicide tolerance
management (HTM)
and stewardship
The
PBO received
several comments on the nature (voluntary or mandatory) of the
HTM
stewardship plan. Some respondents suggested that the
implementation of the
HTM
stewardship plan should be voluntary and industry-led, while
other respondents felt that the stewardship plan should be a
condition of unconfined release.
The
PBO recognizes
that the development and implementation of stewardship plans for
herbicide tolerant (HT)
crops should be industry-led. In addition to being responsible
for the development and implementation, applicants will also be
held accountable for the monitoring of the effectiveness of
their stewardship plan and making any appropriate changes to the
plan as required. The plan should include appropriate strategies
that will allow the deployment of the new
HT crop so that it
may be environmentally safe and sustainable. In addition,
communication to growers and an efficient mechanism that enables
growers to report problems to the developer are also integral to
the stewardship plan.
The
PBO will
evaluate, as part of its environmental safety assessment,
stewardship plans for new HT
crops. Stewardship plans will now be part of the required
information for determining environmental safety and applicants
will be asked to describe, in detail, their stewardship plans in
their unconfined environmental release submissions.
Environmental concerns that should be addressed in stewardship
plans include, but are not limited to, any negative effects
associated with significant changes in agronomic practices as
well as volunteer and weed management issues associated with the
cultivation of the new HT
crop. New HT crops
will not be authorized unless issues surrounding potential
changes in agronomic practices are addressed in a manner that is
consistent with sustainable agricultural practices.
Post-release monitoring plan
Some respondents suggested
the PBO
provide further guidance on what elements should be included in
a post-release monitoring plan to detect unintended or
unexpected environmental effects.
Applicants are required to
provide a suitable post-release monitoring plan, which will be
evaluated, as with all data provided in an unconfined release
submission, on a case-by-case basis. Applicants are required to
use appropriate indicators and parameters that will be based on
the characteristics of the
PNT. The use
of appropriate baseline data to detect unintended or unexpected
environmental effects of the
PNT after
its release in the environment must also be considered in the
monitoring program. The
PBO will only authorize the release of a
PNT until an
acceptable post-release monitoring plan has been proposed by the
applicant.
Approval process
Clarity on what is meant by
“interim approval” and “make this information available to other
stakeholders” was requested.
“Interim approval” is a
“time-limited approval.” Time-limited approval will be granted
in cases where a PNT
is assessed to be safe, but where a follow up with the applicant
for additional information is required in order for proper
implementation of a specific management plan (e.g.,
new insect resistance management plan). For instance, the
PBO may grant
a time-limited approval for the unconfined environmental release
of a PNT
expressing novel insect resistance, when the ability of a
developer to fully research on a proposed
IRM plan
is restricted due to the limitations in size of the confined
field trials. The applicant will be notified of the required
additional information by a deficiency letter. Renewal of the
time-limited approval is contingent upon the submission of
adequate study reports, and/or demonstration of significant
progress in research related to the
PNT. An
indeterminate authorization may only be granted when the
applicant has submitted all the information the
PBO deems
necessary to complete its environmental safety assessment.
The
CFIA
posts a list of all approved
PNTs and
novel feeds from PNTs
on its Web site, along with the accompanying decision documents.
In addition, the PBO
will also inform, where appropriate, other federal authorities,
such as Environment Canada, as well as designated provincial
authorities of any new approval granted for the unconfined
environmental release of a particular
PNT.
Required information on the
Biology and Interaction of the
PNT
Further clarifications was
requested on what are acceptable environments for confined
research field trials and the meaning of “representative” of the
normal growing conditions.
Confined research field trials
of PNTs
should take place in the intended growing
regions of the PNT
in Canada in order for information and data collected during
these trials to accurately reflect the novel plant’s behavior in
its surrounding environment. Data collected from field studies
outside of Canada can be used if the applicant demonstrates that
the environment for testing the
PNT is
similar to the Canadian environment. In cases where there may be
a potential for increased weed characteristics or if the plant
is an outcrossing species, it may be considered appropriate to
also evaluate the novel plant’s behaviour outside of its managed
ecosystem(s). |