176. The InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola that Bayer intends to commercialise in Australia in the current application is derived from conventional breeding between InVigor® canola lines MS8 and RF3 and Roundup Ready® canola line GT73.
177. The InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola would most likely be produced by crossing a MS8 x GT73 hybrid with RF3, but Bayer may also produce it by crossing a RF3 x GT73 hybrid with MS8, or by crossing the two hybrids together (RF3 x GT73 and MS8 x GT73). Hybrids MS8 x GT73 and RF3 x GT73 would therefore be grown by Bayer for breeding and seed production purposes. In addition, Bayer has indicated that it may use the RF3 x GT73 hybrid for cropping in the future.
178. Although they are not intended for commercial release, Bayer is also seeking approval from the Regulator for release of GM canola hybrids derived from conventional breeding between GM Roundup Ready® line GT73 and the remaining GM canola lines authorised for release under licence DIR 021/2002 i.e. T45, Topas 19/2, MS1, RF1 and RF2.
179. Based on the conventional crosses, the introduced genes present in the GM canola hybrids proposed for release are listed in Table 4. The InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola that Bayer intends to commercialise will contain the barnase and barstar genes that comprise a hybrid breeding system; two copies of the bar gene conferring tolerance to glufosinate ammonium; and the cp4 epsps and goxv247 genes that confer tolerance to glyphosate.
Table 4: The introduced genes present in the GM canola hybrids proposed for release
| Gm canola | Hybrid breeding system | Glufosinate ammonium tolerance | Glyphosate tolerance | Antibiotic resistance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MS8 x RF3 x GT73 (InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola) | barnase and barstar | 2 copies of bar | cp4 epsps and goxv247 | - |
| MS8 x GT73 | barnase | bar | cp4 epsps and goxv247 | - |
| RF3 x GT73 | barstar (2 copies) | bar | cp4 epsps and goxv247 | - |
| T45 x GT73 | - | pat | cp4 epsps and goxv247 | - |
| Topas 19/2 x GT73 | - | pat (2 copies) | cp4 epsps and goxv247 | nptII (2 copies) |
| MS1 x GT73 | barnase | bar | cp4 epsps and goxv247 | nptII |
| RF1 x GT73 | barnase | bar | cp4 epsps and goxv247 | nptII |
| RF2 x GT73 | barnase | bar | cp4 epsps and goxv247 | nptII |
6.2 Characterisation of the GMO
180. Extensive data characterising the parental GM canola lines were provided with licence applications DIR 020/2002 and 021/2002. A brief summary of these analyses is provided below, with details available in the RARMPs prepared for these applications. In addition, Bayer has provided five reports characterising the InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola proposed for commercial release. These reports are described in detail below.6.2.1 Stability and molecular characterisation
Parental GM canola lines
181. Molecular characterisation of the parental GM canola lines included Southern blot and PCR analyses, as well as molecular cloning and sequencing of the site of insertion. Stable integration and inheritance of the inserted DNA was demonstrated in all of the lines. DNA sequencing was used to verify the inserted genes and to determine the regions flanking all of the insertions sites.
182. In lines T45, MS1, MS8, RF1, RF2 and GT73, a single insertion event occurred resulting in transfer of a single copy of the T-DNA. In line RF3, a single insertion event occurred that resulted in the integration of one complete copy and a second, incomplete T-DNA copy that included a second copy of the barstar gene. In line Topas 19/2, there is a single insertion event that resulted in a head to head inverted repeat of the T-DNA, such that there are two copies of each of the inserted pat and nptII genes.
183. Field trials of InVigor® canola and Roundup Ready® canola began in Australia in 1996 and 1997, respectively. Roundup Ready® canola has been grown commercially in NSW and Victoria since 2008, and in WA since 2010. In addition, events MS8, RF3 and GT73 have been commercialised for more than 10 years in Canada. In the multiple breeding programs and seed production, there have been no reports of aberrant segregation and instability.
InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola
184. Southern blot analysis was used to demonstrate the molecular equivalence of the MS8, RF3 and GT73 events in InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola to the same events in the individual parental lines. Identical Southern hybridisation patterns were observed for InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola compared to InVigor® canola lines MS8 and RF3 and to Roundup Ready® canola GT73. These findings confirm the intactness of the GM loci and their flanking regions in InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola, indicating that no rearrangement occurred during conventional breeding (Moens 2009b).
Top of page
6.2.2 Expression of the encoded proteins in the GM canola
Parental GM canola lines
185. The expression of each of the introduced genes in each of the GM canola lines authorised under DIR 021/2002 (Topas 19/2, T45, RF1, RF2, RF3, MS1 and MS8) was determined using a variety of techniques including plant phenotype, mRNA expression, and detection of the novel protein by enzyme activity or Enzyme Linked ImmunoSorbent Assays (ELISA). The patterns and levels of expression of the introduced proteins in the GM canola lines were as predicted on the basis of the promoters controlling expression, and a summary of these data is given in Table 5.
Table 5 Summary of expression of the introduced proteins in GM canola lines included in licence DIR 021/2002
| Introduced Protein (GM lines assayed) | Leaves | Seed | Other tissues |
|---|---|---|---|
| PAT (All lines) | Low levels | Very low levels | Very low levels |
| BARNASE (MS1,MS8, or MS x RF) | Not expresses | Not expressed | Flower buds only: tepetum layer of developing anthers |
| BARSTAR (RF1, RF2, RF3 or MS x RF) | Not expresses | Not expressed | Flower buds only: tepetum layer of developing anthers |
| NPTII (Topas 19/2, RF1, RF2, MS1) | Very low levels | Not detected | Not detected |
186. The level of PAT in oil and meal derived from processing of seed from lines T45 and Topas 19/2 was investigated by ELISA. No PAT protein was detected in canola oil derived from the GM canola lines. While PAT protein could be detected by ELISA at less than 0.005% of total protein in toasted canola meal, the processing of canola seed to produce edible oil and meal for animal feed denatures the PAT protein and destroys the enzymatic activity (FDA 1997; ANZFA 2001b).
187. Expression of the bar, barnase, barstar, nptII genes was also investigated by Northern analysis. Expression patterns were as predicted for the promoters used, and no mRNA from any of the genes was detected in pollen or dry seed.
188. The levels of expression of the CP4 EPSPS and GOXv247 proteins in leaf tissue and seeds of the parental Roundup Ready® canola were measured by ELISA (see DIR 020/2002). Results from several field trials conducted overseas demonstrate that the CP4 EPSPS and GOXv247 proteins are expressed at very low levels in leaves and seeds. The level of expression of CP4 EPSPS and GOXv247 constitutes less than 0.02% and 0.07%, respectively, of the seed on a fresh weight basis. Expression levels of the introduced proteins in Roundup Ready® canola were not affected by application of glyphosate.
InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola
189. The expression levels of PAT, CP4 EPSPS and GOX proteins in leaf and seed tissues of InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola and its parental lines MS8, RF3 and GT73 were measured by ELISA. Prior to sampling, MS8 and RF3 plants were treated with glufosinate ammonium, GT73 plants were treated with glyphosate, and MS8 x RF3 x GT73 plants were treated with both herbicides.
190. Table 6 provides a summary of the zygosity of the herbicide tolerance genes in the GM canola plants analysed in this study. GM canola line MS8 is hemizygous for the bar gene. Due to segregation, only 44% of the MS8 x RF3 x GT73 plants generated contained a copy of the bar gene from MS8. However, only MS8 x RF3 x GT73 plants containing the MS8 bar gene were used in this study.
Table 6 Zygosity of the herbicide tolerance genes in the GM canola plants
| Event/stack | bar gene | CP4 EPSPS gene | gox gene |
|---|---|---|---|
| MS8 | hemizygous (1 copy) | - | - |
| RF3 | homozygous (2 copies) | - | - |
| GT73 | - | homozygous (2 copies) | homozygous (2 copies) |
| MS8 x RF3 x GT73 | hemizygous for both MS8 and RF3 (2 copies) | hemizygous (1 copy) | hemizygous (1 copy) |
191. For each protein to be analysed, 10 separate leaf or seed samples were assayed. The average expression levels of the PAT, CP4 EPSPS and GOX proteins in samples of InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola and the parent lines are given in Table 7. Differences in protein expression levels between the parent lines and the MS8 x RF3 x GT73 stack correlated with the zygosity of the plants. Protein expression levels in InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola are either similar to or lower than the low levels observed in the parental lines. This analysis showed no evidence for any interaction between the three events when combined in InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola (Moens 2009a).
Table 7 Average amount of protein per gram fresh weight in leaf and seed tissue samples from GM canola plants
| Tissue | Line/stack | Average amount PAT (µg/g fresh weight ± SD) | Average amount CP4 EPSPS (µg/g fresh weight ±SD) | Average amount GOXv247 (µg/g fresh weight ±SD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaf | MS8 | 10.0 ± 1.5 | N/A | N/A |
| RF3 | 22.6 ± 5.2 | N/A | N/A | |
| GT73 | N/A | 72 ± 15 | 13.7 ± 3.1 | |
| MS8 x RF3 x GT73 | 20.4 ± 4.8 | 51.7 ± 6.8 | 3.21 ± 0.89 | |
| Seed | MS8 | 2.63 ± 0.18 | N/A | N/A |
| RF3 | 5.09 ± 0.42 | N/A | N/A | |
| GT73 | N/A | 112 ± 14 | 12.7 ± 1.7 | |
| MS8 x RF3 x GT73 | 5.08 ± 0.30 | 62.8 ± 8.3 | 10.5 ± 1.4 |
SD = standard deviation; NA = not applicable
Top of page
6.2.3 Agronomic characterisation
Parental GM canola lines
192. The growth characteristics of all of the parental GM canola lines were described in the RARMPs prepared for DIR 020/2002 and 021/2002. The parental GM canola lines do not differ from non-GM canola in flowering period; pollen production and pollen viability (except in the male sterile lines); seed production; seed shattering; seed size; seed weight; seed germination; seed dormancy; or agronomic performance, including disease susceptibility and sensitivity to herbicides other than glyphosate (for Roundup Ready® canola) or glufosinate ammonium (for GM canola lines Topas 19/2, T45, MS1, MS8, RF1, RF2 and RF3).
InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola
193. The agronomic characteristics of InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola were assessed during a field trial conducted in Canada during the 2008 growing season (Darragh & Rouan 2009). Harvested seed from this trial was also sent for nutritional analysis (see Section 6.2.4). The trial occurred at five locations in typical canola production regions of Canada that represented a range of environmental conditions and pest and disease pressures.
194. A randomised block design was used, with four repetitions per location. Within each of the five sites, ten categories of GM canola (Entries) with different hybrid backgrounds were grown (see Table 8). All hybrid backgrounds are commercially available in Canada. Plants were either treated with glufosinate ammonium and/or glyphosate, or were not treated with either of these herbicides, as described in Table 8.
Table 8 Description of the field trial design for agronomic characterisation of the GM canola
| Entry number | GMO | Hybrid background | Herbicide treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MS8 x RF3 | A | glufosinate ammonium |
| 2 | MS8 x RF3 | B | glufosinate ammonium |
| 3 | MS8 x RF3 | C | glufosinate ammonium |
| 4 | MS8 x RF3 x GT73 | A | glyphosate + glufosinate ammonium |
| 5 | MS8 x RF3 x GT73 | A | not treated |
| 6 | MS8 x RF3 x GT73 | B | glyphosate + glufosinate ammonium |
| 7 | MS8 x RF3 x GT73 | B | not treated |
| 8 | GT73 | D | glyphosate |
| 9 | GT73 | E | glyphosate |
| 10 | GT73 | F | glyphosate |
195. The plants were cultivated under typical agronomic practices for growing canola in Canada, including the use of conventional herbicides (not glyphosate or glufosinate ammonium), insecticides and fungicides as necessary.
196. The agronomic characteristics evaluated included:
- Agronomic performance: establishment, vigour pre-herbicide treatment, vigour 1 - 7 days post-herbicide treatment, vigour 15 - 20 days post-herbicide treatment, days to start and end of flowering, plant height, days to maturity, pod shattering, yield, germination and vigour of harvested grain
- Tolerance to biotic factors (insects and diseases)
- Tolerance to heat stress
197. Overall, the agronomic characteristics of MS8 x RF3 x GT73 hybrids were comparable to their commercial MS8 x RF3 counterparts, apart from a small delay to maturity (less than one day; see below).
Effect of herbicide treatment
198. The effect of herbicide treatment was analysed by comparing herbicide treated and untreated MS8 x RF3 x GT73 plants (Entry 4 versus 5 and Entry 6 versus 7). No consistent effect of the herbicide treatment was observed in either hybrid background A or hybrid background B on the following characteristics: establishment; plant vigour; end of flowering; days to maturity; pod shattering; yield; grain germination; and grain vigour.
199. The untreated plants did start flowering significantly earlier, but the actual difference was only half a day or less. In hybrid background B, untreated plants were significantly shorter than treated plants, but this difference was not confirmed in hybrid background A.
MS8 x RF3 x GT73 versus MS8 x RF3 in comparable hybrid backgrounds
200. Statistical analysis was used to compare the agronomic performance of MS8 x RF3 plants to MS8 x RF3 x GT73 plants in hybrid backgrounds A and B (Entry 1 versus 4 and Entry 2 versus 6). No overall significant differences were observed for establishment; days to flowering; pod shattering; yield, grain germination; or grain vigour.
201. At two sites, MS8 x RF3 x GT73 plants showed increased vigour compared to MS8 x RF3 plants before being herbicide treated. This difference continued on to 7 – 10 days post-spraying for one of the sites, but there were no differences in plant vigour 15 – 20 days post herbicide spray at any site.
203. There were no differences in agronomic characteristics that were consistent in both hybrid backgrounds. In hybrid background A, MS8 x RF3 x GT73 matured almost a day later than MS8 x RF3 plants, but no other significant differences were observed. In hybrid background B, MS8 x RF3 x GT73 plants matured about half a day earlier than MS8 x RF3 plants and flowering ended about 0.6 days sooner. MS8 x RF3 x GT73 plants were also about 5 cm shorter than MS8 x RF3 plants in hybrid background B.
MS8 x RF3 x GT73 versus other hybrid backgrounds
204. Descriptive statistics were used to make further comparisons between MS8 x RF3 x GT73 plants in hybrid backgrounds A and B and additional, distinct varieties carrying MS8 x RF3 (Entry 3) or GT73 (Entries 8, 9 and 10). Overall, minimum and maximum values reported for MS8 x RF3 x GT73 plants were well within the range of values reported for the commercial hybrids. Only the yield seemed to be slightly higher in the MS8 x RF3 x GT73 hybrids for the mean and maximum values. However, when MS8 x RF3 x GT73 plants were compared to MS8 x RF3 plants in the same hybrid backgrounds (A and B, as described above), statistical analyses showed that the small differences were not significant.
Biotic and abiotic stress
204. Insect damage, disease symptoms and heat stress symptoms were observed over the course of the experiment. The presence of common insects or diseases was noted on regular site visits. If present, all Entries were given a score between 1 and 9 as an indication of plant health. The following common insects and diseases were observed during the trial:
- Insects – flea beetles, diamond black moth, lygus bugs, bertha armyworm, aphids and cabbage seed pod weevil.
- Diseases – blackleg, sclerotinia, alternaria black spot, fusarium wilt, downy mildew and white rust.
205. Some variation in insect damage was observed between sites, however different sites were subject to different pesticide spray regimes. Within each site, no differences in insect damage, disease symptoms or heat stress symptoms were observed for different plants or different treatments. However, this qualitative analysis would only pick up gross differences in stress symptoms.
Top of page
6.2.4 Compositional analyses
Parental GM canola lines
206. Compositional analyses were provided for each of the parent lines used to generate the GM canola proposed for release (Topas 19/2, T45, MS1, MS8, RF1, RF2, RF3 and GT73), as well as for InVigor® Hybrid canola (MS8 x RF3). Details of these analyses are available in the RARMPs for DIRs 020/2002 and 021/2002.
207. In summary, the levels of erucic acid and glucosinolates in all parental GM canola lines are below the industry standards and do not vary significantly from their parental cultivars or other commercially available canola.
208. Compositional analyses demonstrate that the parental GM canola lines, and the MS8 x RF3 hybrid, are comparable in composition (including fatty acid content, protein content and proximate analyses) to their parental non-GM cultivars, and to other commercial canola cultivars when grown at a variety of different locations, including Canada, Europe and Australia.
209. Application of the herbicides glufosinate ammonium on the InVigor® canola lines and glyphosate on Roundup Ready® canola did not have a significant effect on any of the compositional parameters investigated.
InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola
210. Bayer has provided two nutritional impact assessment reports for InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola (Oberdörfer 2011a; Oberdörfer 2011b). Both reports analysed the same seed components in different GM and non-GM canola hybrids: proximate and fibre compounds, minerals, tocopherols, amino acids, fatty acids, and the anti-nutrients phytic acid, glucosinolates and erucic acid.
211. In summary, the reports demonstrate that MS8 x RF3 x GT73 hybrid canola is nutritionally equivalent to commercial MS8 x RF3 canola and to other commercial canola hybrids. There is no impact on the nutritional value of MS8 x RF3 x GT73 hybrid canola as a result of herbicide treatment, the genetic modifications, or combining the glufosinate ammonium tolerance trait with the glyphosate tolerance trait by conventional breeding. Small differences were detected for some components (including some glucosinolates) but the mean values for these compounds are within the ranges calculated for commercial canola hybrids grown in the same trials, and in good agreement with ranges available in published literature.
212. The levels of glucosinoloates and erucic acid in InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola are within the range observed in MS8 x RF3 and other commercial hybrids, and are well below the standard thresholds (2% erucic acid in the oil and 30 µmoles g-1 glucosinolates in the meal).
Report 1 : MS8 x RF3 x GT73 versus MS8 x RF3
213. The first report used seed collected from the field trial described in Section 6.2.3 to compare MS8 x RF3 x GT73 hybrids to their commercial MS8 x RF3 counterparts (Oberdörfer 2011b). Statistical analyses were done separately for hybrid background A and hybrid background B Entries. The impact of herbicide treatment on MS8 x RF3 x GT73 hybrids was evaluated by comparing seed from treated and untreated MS8 x RF3 x GT73 plants (Entry 4 versus 5 and Entry 6 versus 7). The impact of stacking InVigor® canola with Roundup Ready® canola was evaluated by comparing MS8 x RF3 to MS8 x RF3 x GT73 seeds (Entry 1 versus 4 and Entry 2 versus 6).
214. For most compounds (48/58 in hybrid background A and 47/58 in hybrid background B), there were no significant differences between the Entries over all sites and in both hybrid backgrounds. However, statistically significant Entry effects were detected for a few components, as discussed below.
215. In hybrid background A, significant differences were detected between seeds of herbicide treated MS8 x RF3 and MS8 x RF3 x GT73 (Entries 1 and 4) for phosphorous, zinc, delta tocopherol, alkenyl glucosinolate, total glucosinolate, stearic acid (C18:0), arachidic acid (C20:0), eicosadienoic acid (C20:2) and behenic acid (C22:0). A significant difference was also detected between seeds of herbicide treated and untreated MS8 x RF3 x GT73 (Entries 4 and 5) for myristic acid (C14:0) (see Table 9).
216. In hybrid background B, significant differences were detected between herbicide treated MS8 x RF3 and MS8 x RF3 x GT73 seeds (Entries 2 and 6) for moisture, delta tocopherol, alkenyl glucosinolates, MSGL glucosinolates, stearic acid (C18:0), oleic acid (C18:1), linoleic acid (C18:2), linolenic acid (C18:3), arachidic acid (C20:0), eicosadienoic acid (C20:2) and lignoceric acid (C24:0) (see Table 10).
217. To evaluate the biological and nutritional relevance of these differences, the average values were compared to reference ranges from four commercial canola hybrids (Entries 3, 8, 9 and 10) as well as from published references (Table 9 and Table 10). The comparison with the commercial hybrids is most relevant as the plants were all grown at the same sites and the same methods were used for the analyses. For all of the components that showed a significant Entry effect, the absolute differences are small, and the mean values are within the reference ranges calculated from the tested commercial canola hybrids, and in good agreement with those available from published references. This suggests that there is no major effect on the content of the nutrients caused by the herbicide treatment of MS8 x RF3 x GT73, and that MS8 x RF3 x GT73 hybrid canola is compositionally similar to MS8 x RF3 commercial canola in the same hybrid background.
Table 9 Values for compounds in seeds of MS8 x RF3 x GT73 and MS8 x RF3 in hybrid background A compared to ranges from other canola hybrid backgrounds and from published data. Only compounds that varied between Entries are shown.
| Entry 1 MS8 x RF3 herbicide treateda | Entry 4 MS8 x RF3 x GT73 herbicidea treated | Entry 5 MS8 x RF3 x GT73 not treated a | Range from Entries 3, 8, 9, 10 (other canola hybrids) | Range from published data | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| phosphorousc | 6490 ± 570 | 6240 ± 430 | 6380 ± 440 | 5290 – 8110 | 4800 – 8500f |
| zincc | 47.8 ± 4.3 | 46.2 ± 4.9 | 46.3 ± 4.4 | 32.8 – 58.8 | 62f |
| ironc | 64.8 ± 12.6 | 60.1 ± 7.5 | 75.9 ± 37.8 | 50 – 249 | Not available |
| delta tocopherolc | 7.22 ± 1.9 | 7.80 ± 1.9 | 7.78 ± 1.8 | <5.00 – 10.5 | 0 - 12g, h |
| alkenyl glucosinolatesd | 5.17 ± 1.37 | 4.43 ± 1.09 | 4.87 ± 1.79 | 2.93 – 14.56 | Not available |
| total glucosinolatesd | 10.81 ± 1.53 | 9.75 ± 1.10 | 9.63 ± 1.60 | 6.86 – 20.55 | 6 - 20 (in meal)f |
| stearic acide (C18:0) | 2.21 ± 0.21 | 2.30 ± 0.79 | 2.30 ± 0.19 | 1.58 – 2.59 | 0.8 - 3.0g |
| arachidic acide (C20:0) | 0.73 ± 0.05 | 0.76 ± 0.05 | 0.75 ± 0.06 | 0.55 – 0.85 | 0.2 - 1.2g |
| eicosadienoic acide (C20:2) | 0.062 ± 0.01 | 0.058 ± 0.01 | 0.59 ± 0.01 | <0.01 – 0.07 | 0 - 0.1g |
| behenic acide (C22:0) | 0.38 ± 0.03 | 0.39 ± 0.03 | 0.39 ± 0.03 | 0.24 – 0.44 | 0 - 0.6 g |
See key for Table 10
Table 10 Values for compounds in seeds of MS8 x RF3 x GT73 and MS8 x RF3 in hybrid background B compared to ranges from other canola hybrid backgrounds and from published data. Only compounds that varied between Entries are shown.| Entry 2 MS8 x RF3 herbicide treateda | Entry 6 MS8 x RF3 x GT73 herbicide treateda | Entry 7 MS8 x RF3 x GT73 not treateda | Range from Entries 3, 8, 9, 10 (other canola hybrids) | Range from published data | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| moistureb | 5.90 ± 0.35 | 6.07 ± 0.25 | 6.06 ± 0.21 | 4.97 – 6.51 | 7.4 – 10f |
| delta tocopherolc | 7.05 ± 1.3 | 7.55 ± 1.22 | 7.76 ± 1.5 | <5.00 – 10.5 | 0 – 12g, h |
| alkenyl glucosinolatesd | 6.12 ± 1.77 | 5.09 ± 1.37 | 5.12 ± 1.5 | 2.93 – 14.56 | Not available |
| MSGL glucosinolatesd | 0.11 ± 0.08 | 0.060 ± 0.03 | 0.082 ± 0.06 | <0.05 – 0.41 | Not available |
| stearic acide (C18:0) | 2.04 ± 0.20 | 2.15 ± 0.19 | 2.14 ± 0.19 | 1.58 – 2.59 | 0.8 - 3.0g |
| oleic acide (C18:1) | 62.44 ± 1.47 | 63.51 ± 1.10 | 63.25 ± 1.36 | 61.28 – 66.46 | 51.0 - 70.0g |
| linoleic acide (C18:2) | 17.48 ± 0.50 | 16.70 ± 0.43 | 16.87 ± 0.31 | 15.89 – 19.37 | 15.0 - 30.0g |
| arachidic acide (C20:0) | 0.68 ± 0.04 | 0.72 ± 0.05 | 0.72 ± 0.04 | 0.55 – 0.85 | 0.2 - 1.2g |
| eicosadienoic acide (C20:2) | 0.070 ± 0.004 | 0.064 ± 0.005 | 0.062 ± 0.004 | <0.01 – 0.07 | 0 - 0.1g |
| lignoceric acide (C24:0) | 0.22 ± 0.02 | 0.23 ± 0.03 | 0.24 ± 0.03 | 0.13 – 0.31 | 0 - 0.3g |
a: Mean ± SD; b: %; c: mg/kg; d: µmol/g; e: % of total fatty acids; f: OECD (2001); g: CODEX (2009); h: Converted from mg/kg crude oil to mg/kg dry matter in seed based on a seed fat content of 24.0 – 52.6% dm
Report 2 : MS8 x RF3 x GT73 versus a non-GM comparator
218. In the second report, MS8 x RF3 x GT73 hybrids are compared to a non-GM canola comparator in the same hybrid background and to other canola hybrids commercially available in Canada (Oberdörfer 2011a). The canola was grown at four field trial sites in Canada in 2010. At each site, six categories of canola (Entries) were planted on three replicate plots arranged in a randomised block design. The Entries and their treatments are described in Table 11.
Table 11 Description of the field trial design for composition analysis of GM and non-GM canola
| Entry | Canola | Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| 11 | MS8 x RF3 x GT73 (hybrid background A) | glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium |
| 12 | MS8 x RF3 x GT73 (hybrid background A) | not treated |
| 13 | non-GM comparator (hybrid background A) | not treated |
| 14 | commercial variety hybrid 1 | glyphosate |
| 15 | commercial variety hybrid 2 | glufosinate ammonium |
| 16 | commercial variety hybrid 3 | glufosinate ammonium |
219. Statistical analyses comparing the composition data from Entries 11 – 13 showed no significant Entry effect for most compounds (48/58). However, significant Entry effects were again detected for a few components, as discussed below.
220. A significant difference in moisture was detected between MS8 x RF3 x GT73 canola treated with glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium (Entry 11) and the non-GM comparator (Entry 13). However, no difference was detected between untreated MS8 x RF3 x GT73 canola (Entry 12) and the non-GM comparator (Entry 13). The analysis was repeated on a site-by-site basis, which showed no significant differences between the Entries at any of the sites.
221. Significant differences between MS8 x RF3 x GT73 canola, both treated and untreated, and the non-GM comparator (Entry 11 vs. 13 and Entry 12 vs. 13) were detected for alpha tocopherol; alkenyl glucosinolates; the minerals calcium and manganese; and five fatty acids (C18:2 linoleic acid, C18:3 linoleic acid, C22:0 behenic acid, C24:0 lignoceric acid and C24:1 nervonic acid). However, for all of the compounds which showed a significant Entry effect, the absolute differences are small, and the mean values are within the reference ranges from the three commercial canola hybrids (Entries 14 – 16) and in good agreement with those available from published references (Table 12). This suggests that MS8 x RF3 x GT73 hybrid canola is compositionally similar to non-GM canola in the same hybrid background.
Table 12 Values for compounds in seeds of MS8 x RF3 x GT73 canola and the non-GM comparator compared to ranges from commercial canola hybrids and from published literature. Only compounds that varied between Entries are shown.
| Entry 11 (MS8 x RF3 x GT73 herbicide treated)a | Entry 12 (MS8 x RF3 x GT73 not treated)a | Entry 13 non-GM comparatora | Range from Entries 14-16 (commercial hybrids) | Range from published data | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| calciumb | 3968 ± 361 | 3942 ± 563 | 3478 ± 549 | 3110 – 5310 | 2900 – 4800f |
| manganeseb | 33.4 ± 4.7 | 34.2 ± 5.5 | 37.6 ± 4.6 | 20.6 – 40.2 | Not available |
| alpha tocopherolb | 76.0 ± 16.9 | 73.1 ± 17.9 | 89.7 ± 20.9 | 37.4 – 125.0 | 24 – 203e, g |
| alkenyl glucosinolatesc | 6.47 ± 1.90 | 6.23 ± 1.53 | 7.37 ± 0.95 | 2.34 – 8.06 | Not available |
| total glucosinolatesc | 13.02 ± 2.54 | 12.58 ± 2.24 | 13.62 ± 1.75 | 6.38 – 14.26 | 6 – 29f (in meal) |
| linoleic acidd C18:2 | 18.33 ± 0.89 | 18.21 ± 0.85 | 19.35 ± 1.04 | 17.81 – 23.21 | 15.0 – 30.0g (in meal) |
| behenic acidd C22:0 | 0.414 ± 0.043 | 0.415 ± 0.043 | 0.435 ± 0.048 | 0.270 – 0.44 | 0 – 0.6g (in meal) |
| lignoceric acidd C24:0 | 0.236 ± 0.035 | 0.228 ± 0.035 | 0.211 ± 0.039 | 0.110 – 0.320 | 0 – 0.3g (in meal) |
| nervonic acidd C24:1 | 0.278 ± 0.073 | 0.280 ± 0.068 | 0.246 ± 0.067 | 0.150 – 0.340 | 0 – 0.4g (in meal) |
a; Mean ± SD; b: mg/kg dry matter in seed; c: µmol/g dry matter in seed; d: % of total fatty acids; e: Converted from mg/kg crude oil to mg/kg dry matter in seed based on a seed fat content of 24.0 – 52.6% dm; f: OECD (2001); g: CODEX (2009)
Top of page