08/July/22

 

In an article for the French political magazine Fakir, the journalist Julien Fomenta Rosat tells how he was commissioned by a shadowy agency to write numerous articles to influence public opinion. These included articles aimed at discrediting the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) after it classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. The agency, iStrat, acted as a middleman for unknown clients whose anonymity was carefully concealed. The article gives a fascinating and frightening glimpse of one way that public opinion is manipulated by covert operators who hide their profit-making agendas behind a facade of independent journalism. GMWatch

 

 

A court in Argentina has prohibited the commercialisation of HB4 GMO wheat in the province of Buenos Aires. The Court of Criminal Responsibility no. 2 of Mar del Plata set, via an injunction, a brake on the expansion of the planted area and the use of seeds for field research. The sentence came in response to a collective lawsuit brought by farmers, social organisations and indigenous peoples. They emphasise that the action could be replicated in other provinces. GMWatch on Twitter @GMWatch

 

 

The Province of Misiones in Argentina wants to ban glyphosate. A two-year transition is planned. If the ban succeeds, Misiones will be the second Argentine province to enact such a ban. The first was Chubut Province in the Patagonia region. GMWatch on Twitter @GMWatch

 

 

The question of how to regulate genetic engineering in New Zealand has been raging for almost as long as the technology has been around – since the 1970s. Now the topic is in the headlines again after the Productivity Commission recommended in its 2021 report that New Zealand’s strict laws regulating GM ought to be reviewed, in part because the techniques used have evolved. Those who would like to see GM deregulated argue that conventional breeding of plants is a form of genetic engineering and that the biochemical processes of gene editing are similar to those that cause natural mutations. But Jack Heinemann, a professor at the University of Canterbury, who promotes regulation, says the “equivalence to nature” argument is a semantic obfuscation. A High Court ruling in 2014 made it unambiguous. New Zealand became the first country to make it explicit in law that gene editing is a technique of genetic modification, meaning it must be regulated. Heinemann was the expert witness in this case. This ruling hinged on the ability of the technique to make changes at scale that wouldn’t happen in nature, he says. Organic NZ

 

 

In April 2022, MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) organised a webinar on "Detection and traceability of new genomic techniques for GMOs". The MEPs were concerned by the European Commission’s inertia in failing to implement a programme to detect and trace new GMOs resulting from new genomic techniques. The invited scientists affirmed that detection and traceability have been possible for a long time. In a followup interview with Inf'OGM, the scientist Yves Bertheau said the techniques for developing “new GMOs” are not very effective, unlike those for detecting them. “Directed” mutagenesis, a set of techniques used for the production of new GMOs, is particularly inaccurate. These techniques, and their associated steps such as in vitro cell culture, generate unintended mutations that are never described. However, there are several techniques that can detect these ’scars’ or ’signatures’ left in GMOs by these technical steps. Sarah Agapito-Tenfen, a researcher at NORCE's FoodPrint project, told Inf'OGM that detection of new GMOs does not need to be limited to the PCR methods used to detect older-style GMOs, but can include molecules other than DNA, such as proteins, metabolites or biomarkers. Inf'OGM

 

We hope you’ve enjoyed this newsletter, which is made possible by readers’ donations. Please support our work with a one-off or regular donation. Thank you!