24/June/22

 

Groups and individuals from UK civil society have issued a joint statement urging MPs to take urgent steps to amend and strengthen the draft Genetic Technologies (Precision Breeding) Bill. The 32 signatories, representing a broad range of food, farming, animal welfare, human health, environmental, academic, ethical and spiritual interests say the bill goes too far in deregulating gene editing technologies and removes key protections and citizen’s right to choose. GMWatch is among the signatories. Beyond GM

 

 

A report published last night by the government’s Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC) concludes that the government has failed to make a convincing business case for the deregulation of genetically engineered (so called “precision bred”) organisms in the farming and food system. The RPC is an independent body, sponsored by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) whose role is to “assess the quality of evidence and analysis used to inform regulatory proposals affecting the economy, businesses, civil society, charities and other non-government organisations”. It warns that, even as the government rushes to conclude the Commons phase of the bill’s passage before the summer recess, it has failed to prove its case. The report concludes that overall, the government’s analysis in an Impact Assessment (IA) of the full impact of deregulating genome edited plants and animals is “weak” and that “Therefore, the RPC is unable to certify that the IA is fit for purpose.” Beyond GM

 

 

A Center for Food Safety webinar looks at cell-cultured (lab grown) meat. Dr Michael Hansen of Consumer Reports is interviewed and says, "This is going to be so primitive compared to the real meats that my question is: What's going to be the effects on the microbiome of people eating [it]? I would suspect (these lab products) are going to have quite an impact on the microbiome. What are the epigenetic effects of these new foods? Those questions need to be asked in addition to the traditional toxicology questions: 'How much does it take to kill you?'" Regarding the (lack of) regulation in the US he says, "The companies themselves were talking about [getting] to decide for themselves what's safe and maybe tell the FDA and maybe not. For such a new technology that's horrendous that [FDA are] even considering allowing that. And it's a dereliction of FDA's duty if they do that." Center for Food Safety via GMWatch on Twitter @GMWatch

 

 

What's wrong with the way glyphosate is regulated? Plenty, as shown in a new review by Dr Eva Novotny. Dr Novotny highlights scientific shortfalls in the regulatory process as well as issues with integrity and objectivity. The scientific shortfalls include the failure to require long-term safety testing on the glyphosate formulations as sold and used, which research shows are far more toxic than the isolated active ingredient glyphosate alone. Currently glyphosate alone is evaluated for long-term toxicity, though almost everybody who is exposed to glyphosate is exposed to the formulations. On the issue of the integrity of the approvals process, Dr Novotny writes that the regulation of glyphosate in the EU and the US is corrupted by malpractices arising from conflicts of interest. GMWatch

 

 

The philanthropic foundation set up by US billionaire Bill Gates quietly co-finances experiments with GMOs in several African countries. In the age of philanthropic capitalism, billionaires "save the world" and make money in the process. But who is helped the most, ordinary Africans or the food industry? This ARTE film is in English. ARTE

 

 

Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, champions nukes, GMO crops, synthetic biology, cloning and geoengineering. In recent years he has become particularly associated with the rebranding of Jurassic Park-type cloning as "de-extinction" — a phony concept that won’t work as advertised. Now Malcolm Harris has written a devastating review of a biography of Brand (authored by tech journalist John Markoff) in The Nation. Harris calls Brand "a man of meager talents and what appears to be an exceptionally bad personality". He concludes, "The reader is left with a picture that’s suspiciously overexposed, a portrait that illuminates flaws in the attempt to cover them up. Sometimes that’s the most flattering thing anyone can do." The Nation