Tell the UK government not to deregulate gene-edited GMOs! The consultation closes tomorrow (March 17) at 23:59 hrs, so please let the government know your views. Beyond GM
In an article full of misinformation, Gideon Henderson of the UK government's farm ministry DEFRA has come out with a statement - before the consultation on deregulating gene editing closes and before responses have been analysed - that the government is minded to weaken the regulations around this experimental technology. Beyond GM on Twitter @Beyond_GM
In the misleading article (see above), Gideon Henderson claims that there is "there is pretty general support" for deregulation. But this is NOT what we are hearing from members of the public, various organisations, and experts.
For example, David Christian Rose, associate professor of agricultural innovation and extension at the University of Reading,
commented that he had raised "concerns" with DEFRA about the one-sided nature of the consultation. And Dan Crossley, executive director of the Food Ethics Council, has
written to George Eustice, secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, expressing concerns about the consultation process.
He writes: "The consultation is presented in a one-sided way, which is not desirable or appropriate, as it feels to lots of civil society organisations like a fait accompli. This is likely to lead to further polarisation. It also excludes a number of important aspects of the technology, as well as moral perspectives. Much of the consultation document uses technical language that is not appropriate for a non-specialist audience. For these reasons, many will be put off taking part in the consultation."
Crossley also criticises the inflated claims that DEFRA makes about the supposed benefits of gene editing in its consultation document, saying that it "begs questions, both about supporting evidence for the claims of potential benefits and about potential concerns or risks, including concentration of corporate power and ownership over food production, contamination and ‘off-target effects’, which do not appear to have been appropriately considered or presented in the consultation document."
Crossley writes, "In our view, there are (at least) two critical tests the consultation will need to pass in order for the exercise to have been meaningful. We do not believe the consultation currently looks set to pass these tests." The tests are: "Will the (potential) benefits and harms relating to food and farming as a whole be properly accounted for?" and "Will the ethical case be clear and robust?"
It's clear that there is high level support for opposition to the government's plans. So please respond to the consultation and don't give the government any excuse to pretend there is little or no pushback against their plan. Indeed, Pat Thomas of Beyond GM
commented on Twitter, "Surely by now no one is surprised at this government’s willingness to lie to get its way. For DEFRA Chief Scientist to say they have had little opposition to GMO deregulation is clearly intended to mislead and discourage last minute submissions. KEEP WRITING FOLKS!"
Dr Jonathan Latham says gene "editing is a marketing term that conceals more than it reveals". It implies micro changes to the genome and precision — but the term was created BEFORE anyone knew what the actual effects were in cells of using these technologies. His talk, "Gene 'Editing' or Genome Scrambling", starts at 45:00 minutes. He holds a Masters in Crop Genetics and a PhD in Virology and has published scientific papers in disciplines as diverse as plant ecology, plant virology and genetics. Navdanya International
Bayer has lain out its plans for Midwest row crop agriculture: "By [2030] the company expects to offer tolerance to six herbicides. 4th generation with five herbicide tolerances (glyphosate, dicamba, glufosinate, HPPD, 2,4-D), Fifth generation adds PPOs [PPO Inhibitors, also called contact herbicides]" to 4th. Dr Charles Benbrook commented, "What will these 'modern ag' technologies do? Increase farmer seed costs, double herbicide acre treatments, again, set back efforts to grow cover crops and diversify ag, and hasten the pace toward the weed resistance cliff. Not to mention the public health impacts." Charles Benbrook on Twitter @chuckbenbrook
Agribusiness giant Bayer/Monsanto claims that Mexico’s proposed restrictions on the active ingredient in its Roundup herbicide violate the country’s trade agreement with the US. Will the Biden administration agree? The American Prospect
__________________________________________________________
Website:
http://www.gmwatch.org Profiles:
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/GM_Watch:_Portal Twitter:
http://twitter.com/GMWatch Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/GMWatch/276951472985?ref=nf
