Public comments

The Summary Notification Information Format (SNIF) was initially published on the Joint Research Center (JRC) website on September 29 (2004). Public comments were received during 30 days, and originated from the Netherlands (3), Italy (1), Ireland (1) and the UK (1). On December 2004, a revised SNIF was published on the JRC website due to the limitation of the scope, i.e. the withdrawal of line 123.2.2. Only public comments originating from Dutch persons are addressed by the Netherlands CA in this assessment report, and are summarized below, under points 1 to 3. Public comments originating from other member states are to be addressed by the relevant CA’s under the 2001/18/EC, during their national assessment in the 60-day period.

Public comments on the notification C/NL/06/01 and reaction of the Netherlands CA

Public comments which were addressed by the Netherlands CA were submitted by:
- Ms. Bos, Lelystad, The Netherlands;

1. Ms. Bos notes that carnation may form roots or may be propagated by stem cuttings. Therefore it can not be ruled out that the material will be propagated to plants by third parties.

Answer: The Committee on Genetic Modification (COGEM) has reviewed this aspect in their advice CGM/070206-02. Carnation is not able to spread vegetatively and cut flowers are not able to form roots. Although the abovementioned aspect can not be ruled out, carnation has no weedy characteristics and the traits (blue pigmentation and herbicide tolerance) do not alter the biology of carnation. It is therefore highly unlikely that the genetically modified carnation line 123.8.12 will spread in the environment.

2. Ms. Bos states that the presence of CaMV 35S promoter in carnation line 123.8.12 may cause ‘genetic pollution’.

Answer: The scope of the notification is import only, so no cultivation will take place in the EU. Furthermore, both COGEM (CGM/050207-01 and CGM/070206-02) and EFSA (Question No EFSA-Q-2005-282) conclude in their opinions that carnation can only theoretically hybridize with wild relatives. Due to the intended use of cut flowers only, the likelihood of a successful hybridization with wild relatives is further drastically reduced. It is therefore highly unlikely, if not impossible, that CaMV 35S promoter sequences will be transferred to non-transgenic carnation.

3. Ms. Bos is of the opinion that all flower bunches sold to consumers should have attached a label mentioning that the flowers are transgenic.

Answer: The Netherlands CA proposes the condition that the product will be labeled or accompanied by a document showing the words ‘This product is a genetically modified organism’ or ‘This product is a genetically modified carnation’, and the words ‘not for human or animal consumption nor for cultivation’.

From Notification C/NL/06/01

Any more comments? Any more questions?