20/June/22

 

Food produced using new genetic engineering methods, such as the so-called “gene scissors” gene-editing tool CRISPR/Cas, is still subject to the strict rules of EU genetic engineering law for agriculture and food. But the EU Commission has initiated a process towards deregulation for some or all new genetic engineering techniques. Now leading representatives of the Austrian food retail trade are expressing concerns that deregulation of EU genetic engineering law would mean the unacceptable risk that retailers could unknowingly be selling untested and unlabelled foods made with new genetic engineering techniques. GMWatch

 

 

On 25 May the UK government introduced into Parliament the first draft of the "Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill", which aims to remove almost all regulatory controls, including in-depth risk assessment and labelling, of most types of GM crops, farm animals, and foods. GMWatch warns that the Bill, if passed without major Amendments, will create a GMO free-for-all, putting at risk public health and the environment. From the standpoint of science, the Bill is a fabrication based on dishonesty and a determination to dismiss years of peer-reviewed findings on the effects of gene editing and other new GM technologies. GMWatch has published an analysis, with technical advice from Dr Michael Antoniou, of what's wrong with the Bill. GMWatch

 

 

A new Bill has been put before Parliament that will change the law to remove most regulatory controls from GMOs in England. Please support Beyond GM's campaign – write to your MP and let them know this Bill needs urgent and wide-ranging revisions in order to protect citizens, farmers, animals and the environment.
Write to your MP:
https://beyondgm.eaction.online/regulate-label-gmos-uk
Sign this petition:
https://donthide.gmfreeze.org/?petition_origin=beyondgm   GMWatch

 

 

Mairi McAllan, the Scottish Government Minister for Environment, Biodiversity and Land Reform, has written to the UK government telling them that the Genetic Technology Bill is "unacceptable". McAllan accuses the government of failing to consult the Scottish devolved government and undermining public confidence in the food system by not requiring GMO labelling for exempted new GM products. She says the government must not "force products on Scotland which do not meet standards here without the consent of the Scottish Parliament". She also warns that "removing gene-edited products from England’s GM regulatory regime would mean divergence from the EU approach and as such could have implications for compliance costs and future trade". GMWatch

 

 

GMWatch has published the transcript of a fascinating podcast interview with Michael Antoniou - a scientist who is outspoken about the dangers involved in deregulating gene-edited crops. Dr Antoniou is not someone who can easily be dismissed as ignorant of genetics or unfamiliar with the technology involved. e is a career-long molecular geneticist who has long used “all manner of genetic engineering technologies", including gene editing. What makes this interview particularly compelling is that the podcast host Patrick Holden, as a farmer himself, the former director of the Soil Association and the co-founder with Anthony Rodale of the Sustainable Food Trust, brings a wealth of knowledge of farming and the food industry to this lively but in-depth exploration of Michael Antoniou’s concerns, expertise and research. GMWatch

 

 

The UK government's determination to deregulate gene editing in agriculture has been branded a "conceptual sleight of hand" with some leading scientists unconvinced it is the panacea for twenty-first century ills. “There’s a little bit of conceptual sleight of hand to say it’s not any form of GM or genetic modification,” Prof Tim Benton, a biologist with independent policy institute Chatham House, said. While the National Farmers Union has welcomed the proposals, supermarkets have not yet said whether they will carry gene-edited plants, crops or animal products. [GMW: GMWatch editor Claire Robinson is quoted in this article.] The Epoch Times

 

 

On 15 June the second reading of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill took place in the House of Commons (the discussion starts at 17:27:55 in the video recording; the Hansard transcription is here). Conservative politicians misled Parliament at every turn. Environment secretary George Eustice claimed that the new GM techniques that the government wants to deregulate are not GM at all. And Katherine Fletcher MP claimed that gene editing doesn't use transgenes, which is false, and that it is precise, which is also false. Fletcher also claimed that gene-edited products can't be identified ("It is literally scientifically impossible to identify a gene-edited product if it is done properly"). This is false too. All plant varieties can be identified using widely used biochemical and molecular analytical techniques, as the European Commission states in its regulation on crop varieties. There is no reason why gene-edited varieties should be exceptions to this rule. GMWatch comment on UK House of Commons proceedings

 

 

Beekeeper Sebastian Seusing, from Brandenburg Germany, has won a lawsuit at the Regional Court in Frankfurt an der Oder for contamination of his honey with glyphosate. A civil chamber of the court upheld the man's claim on Monday, a court spokesman said. The defendant agricultural company will now pay him 14,544 euros. The court spokesman said that Seusing had "fully succeeded" with his claim. The civil chamber considered the contamination of the honey with pesticide as a violation of property. According to the court, the defendant agricultural company committed an unlawful negligent breach of duty. Pesticide Action Network Germany (no link)

 

 

A US federal appeals court has issued a ruling on the weedkiller glyphosate that the coalition involved with the case called "a historic victory for farmworkers and the environment". The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review its conclusions about the safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide. The EPA "recently assessed whether glyphosate poses 'any unreasonable risk to man or the environment' and answered, for the most part, 'no'", the opinion explains, referring to the agency's widely criticised decision from January 2020. "A group of petitioners challenged EPA's decision, arguing, among other things, that EPA did not adequately consider whether glyphosate causes cancer and shirked its duties under the Endangered Species Act," the ruling continues. "We agree and remand to the agency for further consideration." GMWatch