Missoula Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Analysis, 2003-2008: Toward A Blueprint For Municipal Sustainability

The City of Missoula has been a signer on the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement for three mayor administrations, with Mayor John Engen renewing the pledge shortly after he took office in 2006. Mayor Engen and the City of Missoula formed a partnership in January 2009 with The University of Montana and Professor Robin Saha of the Environmental Studies Program to complete an emissions inventory of municipal operations. The specific goals of the report are: 1. To present a baseline greenhouse gas emissions inventory for the City of Missoula that quantifies total energy use and associated emissions for municipal operations. 2. To identify major sources of municipal GHG emissions and relative contributions within and among the various sectors examined. 3. To analyze changes and trends in energy use, costs and emissions from Fiscal Years (FY) 2003 to 2008. 4. To identify opportunities and offer recommendations to achieve future municipal GHG emission reductions and energy cost savings

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 × DAS‐40278‐9 and subcombinations independently of their origin for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2013‐113)

Maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 × DAS‐40278‐9 (five‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine five single events: MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017, 59122 and DAS‐40278‐9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the 5 single maize events and 11 of their subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or their 11 subcombinations that could modify the original conclusions on their safety were identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicates that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the five‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the five‐event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to its non‐GM comparator and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of the five‐event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in the 14 maize subcombinations for which no experimental data were provided, and concludes that they are expected to be as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the five‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the five‐event stack maize. No post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the five‐event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as its non‐GM comparator and the tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment

Somatic embryogenesis and the effect of particle bombardment on banana Maçã regeneration

Neste trabalho é descrito um método de regeneração de plantas, a partir de células de bananeira, em suspensão, e o efeito da biobalística no potencial regenerativo. Embriões somáticos foram obtidos de inflorescências masculinas de bananeira cv. Maçã (grupo AAB) por meio de embriogênese indireta. Parte dos calos (40%) apresentou características embriogênicas (não-friáveis, compactas e amareladas). Suspensões celulares obtidas desses calos continham pequenas massas celulares, com citoplasmas ricos em grânulos de amido, núcleos grandes e nucléolos densos. Após quatro meses, embriões somáticos começaram a se desenvolver. O número máximo de plantas regeneradas ocorreu 45–60 dias após a formação dos embriões. No primeiro experimento foram regeneradas 401 plantas. No segundo, 399 plantas foram obtidas de uma suspensão celular 6 meses mais velha do que a do primeiro experimento. Transformações celulares com uma das três construções plasmidiais utilizadas, que continham o gene uid-A, resultaram em fortes sinais de expressão cinco dias após as transformações; todavia, o número de plantas regeneradas foi muito menor do que o observado no material não bombardeado.A plant regeneration method with cell suspension cultures of banana, and the effect of biobalistic on regeneration potential are described in this report. Somatic embryos of banana were obtained from indirect embryogenesis of male inflorescence of banana cultivar Maçã (AAB group). Part of the calluses formed (40%) showed embryogenic characteristics (nonfriable, compact and yellow color). The cell suspension, originated from embryogenic calluses, contained clusters of small tightly packed cells with dense cytoplasms, relatively large nuclei and very dense nucleoli. After four months of culture, somatic embryos started to regenerate. The maximum number of regenerated plants was observed between 45 and 60 days after embryo formation. In the first experiment, 401 plants were regenerated from approximately 10 mL of packed cells. In the second experiment, 399 plants were regenerated from a cell suspension six months older than that of the first experiment. Cell transformation using particle bombardment with three different plasmid constructions, containing the uid-A gene, resulted in a strong GUS expression five days after bombardment; however, plant regeneration from bombarded cells was much lower than nonbombarded ones

Statement complementing the EFSA Scientific Opinion on application (EFSA-GMO-UK-2006-34) for authorisation of food and feed containing, consisting of and produced from genetically modified maize 3272

Following a request from the European Commission, the GMO Panel assessed additional information related to the application for authorisation of food and feed containing, consisting of and produced from genetically modified (GM) maize 3272 (EFSA-GMO-UK-2006-34). The applicant conducted new agronomic, phenotypic and compositional analysis studies on maize 3272 and assessed the allergenic potential of AMY797E protein, addressing elements that remained inconclusive from previous EFSA opinion issued in 2013. The GMO Panel is of the opinion that the agronomic and phenotypic characteristics as well as forage and grain composition of maize 3272 do not give rise to food and feed safety, and nutritional concerns when compared to non-GM maize. Considering the scope of this application and the characteristics of the trait introduced in this GM maize, the effect of processing and potential safety implications of specific food or feed products remain to be further investigated. Regarding the allergenic potential of AMY797E protein and considering all possible food and feed uses of maize 3272, the Panel concludes that the information provided does not fully address the concerns previously raised by the Panel in 2013. Owing to the nature and the knowledge available on this protein family, it is still unclear whether under specific circumstances the alpha-amylase AMY797E has the capacity to sensitise certain individuals and to cause adverse effects. To further support the safety of specific products of maize 3272, the applicant provided thorough information relevant for the allergenicity assessment of dried distiller grains with solubles (DDGS), which is the main product of interest for importation into the EU. Having considered the information provided on this product, the Panel is of the opinion that under the specific conditions of use described by the applicant, DDGS produced from maize 3272 does not raise concerns when compared to DDGS from non-GM maize

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 87419 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2017‐140)

Genetically modified maize MON 87419 was developed to confer tolerance to dicamba- and glufosinate-based herbicides. These properties were achieved by introducing the dmo and pat expression cassettes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize MON 87419 and its conventional counterpart needed further assessment, except for the levels of arginine and protein in grains which did not raise safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the dicamba mono-oxygenase (DMO) and phosphinothricin N-acetyltransferase (PAT) proteins as expressed in maize MON 87419. The GMO Panel finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize MON 87419. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MON 87419 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87419 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MON 87419 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The postmarket environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MON 87419. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87419 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment

Assessment of genetically modified maize 1507 × MIR162 × MON810 × NK603 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2015-127).

Maize 1507 × MIR162 × MON810 × NK603 (four-event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: 1507, MIR162, MON810 and NK603. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single events and six of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events or the six subcombinations that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety were identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the four-event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four-event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as its non-GM comparator and the non-GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable seeds of the four-event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in the four maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the four-event stack maize. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four-event stack maize. Post-market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four-event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as the non-GM comparator and the tested non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment

Assessment of genetically modified maize GA21 × T25 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐DE‐2016‐137)

Genetically modified maize GA21 x T25 was developed by crossing to combine two single events: GA21 and T25. The GMO Panel previously assessed the two single maize events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events were identified that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in maize GA21 x T25 does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that maize GA21 x T25, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non-GM reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food and feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize GA21 x T25 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize GA21 x T25. Post-market monitoring of food and feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that maize GA21 x T25 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non-GM reference varieties tested, with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment

Assessment of genetically modified Maize MON 87429 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2019‐161)

Maize MON 87429 was developed to confer tolerance to dicamba, glufosinate, quizalofop and 2,4-D herbicides. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize MON 87429 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for the levels of phytic acid in grains, which do not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the DMO, PAT, FT_T and CP4 EPSPS proteins as expressed in maize MON 87429. The GMO Panel finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize MON 87429. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MON 87429 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87429 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MON 87429 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MON 87429. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87429, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment