02/September/22

 

Minuscule amounts of the weedkiller Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate can result in damage to the nervous system, finds research led by scientists at Florida Atlantic University, published in Scientific Reports. As hundreds of millions of pounds of glyphosate continue to be sprayed on hundreds of millions of acres of land throughout the United States each year, recent data indicate that four out of five US children and adults contain detectable levels of glyphosate in their bodies. The pesticide industry and its paid supporters claim that although contamination is widespread, the levels found in humans are not cause for concern. This latest research significantly undermines that specious argument, finding impacts on critical nervous system processes at levels 300 times less than the the lowest suggested amount on the Roundup label. [GMW: Other reporting on this study is here.] Beyond Pesticides

 

 

After brief deliberations, a St Louis jury on Thursday sided with Monsanto in the latest Roundup cancer trial. The win puts Monsanto and its German owner Bayer at five trials won versus three won by plaintiffs. The jury took only a few hours to reach the verdict. The decision in favour of the company came after a lawyer for three cancer patients sought to convince jurors that his clients’ exposure to Monsanto herbicides caused their illnesses while a lawyer for the company insisted that scientific evidence proves the products are safe. Notably, though Monsanto hinges a lot of its defence on US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) safety findings, in June, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the EPA’s favourable human health safety assessment for glyphosate, ruling that the EPA did not properly follow scientific guidelines when it determined glyphosate was not carcinogenic. The court found that EPA officials discounted several important studies and that “most studies EPA examined indicated that human exposure to glyphosate is associated with an at least somewhat increased risk of developing NHL". In the latest case, however, lawyers for the plaintiffs were not permitted by the judge in the case to tell jurors of that information. The New Lede

 

 

The UK is breaking from the EU to press ahead with gene editing. Could it cut costs on shelves? Pat Thomas, director of civil society group Beyond GM, disputes any idea that the planned relaxation of rules could ease the cost of living crisis. “It’s an incredibly cynical argument,” she says. “The fact is there are no gene edited crops ready to go in the ground right now, and the crisis we’re experiencing is right now.” The first crops could be as long as five years away from production. It ignores the commercial reality too, points out Paula Kover, of the University of Bath’s department of biology and biochemistry. “The technology is expensive to develop, so companies developing them will be looking for profit, and the idea that gene edited food will necessarily be cheaper is not an obvious consequence,” she says. “I can think of a lot of niche markets developing for crops with extra vitamins and nutrients, and these are upscale products that will not act to give the majority of people access to cheaper food.” The Grocer (register for free guest access)

 

 

Can GMO trees capture our carbon? The co-founder of Living Carbon, Patrick Mellor, who helped develop the world’s first GMO trees for this purpose, says yes, but a panel of experts have multiple concerns and reservations. BBC Sounds

 

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!