Like many countries, the EU is currently revisiting its GMO legislation to accommodate the emergence of new GM techniques. In a new science policy paper, the authors argue that assessing such technologies according to whether they are "safe enough" will not create the public trust necessary for societal acceptance. They write that we need open, transparent, and inclusive societal debate on the nature of the science of gene (editing) technologies, on how to use them, and whether they contribute to sustainable solutions to societal and environmental challenges. They add that instead of claiming that regulation based on the precautionary principle causes unfair treatment of new gene-edited GMOs, one could question whether a shift towards a green and more sustainable economy doesn't require a move in the other direction — towards more precautionary approaches. They write that promises advanced on behalf of new GMOs should be balanced with foresight analysis identifying potential problems arising from their use – and the assessment of feasible alternatives. They conclude that to be trustworthy, GMO regulation must demonstrate the authorities’ ability to manage the scientific, socio-economic, environmental, and ethical complexities and uncertainties associated with new GM techniques. [GMW: We'd add that no one has done any research to ascertain whether or not the new GM techniques are "safe enough". We agree, however, that the other considerations detailed by the authors are vital.] Agriculture and Human Values

 

 

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has published a statement on the future risk assessment of plants derived from new genetic engineering techniques (new genomic techniques, NGT), and thereby proposed a considerable reduction in currently valid regulations for genetically engineered plants, reports Testbiotech. This would mean that in most cases, future risk assessment would only take the intended characteristics of the plants into account, and set aside any unintended genetic changes caused by the genetic engineering processes. As a result, many new GM plants could be brought to market without undergoing detailed risk assessment. Testbiotech via GMWatch

 

 

Opposition MPs have accused the government of a lack of detail and clarity over its plans to change UK legislation to allow gene-edited crops to be grown and sold in England. MPs expressed their concerns during the progress of the bill through its third reading in the House of Commons on 31 October and it will now be debated in the House of Lords. During the debate in parliament, MPs raised concerns about a lack of detail within the proposed legislation. Shadow farm minister and Labour MP Daniel Zeichner described the bill as “vague and thin” and called for details of how the technology would be adequately regulated. He said: “We must recognise that any new technology also carries risks: risks of unintended consequences; risks of technology being misused; and risks of commercial pressure being exerted in ways that might not be for the benefit of the wider public.” Speaking outside of the debate, Pat Thomas, director of Beyond GM, said there was "a growing awareness that the bill is not really a bill for farmers or farming or food but for industry and narrow vested interests". Farmers Weekly

 

 

Compassion in World Farming has released a new report warning that unless gene editing is carefully restricted, it will perpetuate farm animal suffering. Over the last 50 years, selective breeding for increased productivity – particularly for fast growth, high yields and large litters – has led to many painful, stressful health and welfare problems in nearly all the main farmed animal species. Compassion is deeply concerned that the UK government is likely to increase the suffering of farm animals by allowing a new form of breeding – gene editing – in farming in England. If passed, the UK government's Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill would permit gene-edited animals and their progeny to be used on farms, subject to some loosely defined and wholly inadequate animal welfare protections. Food products from these animals will also be sold in shops and restaurants without being labelled as such, leaving consumers who oppose gene editing unable to avoid them. Compassion in World Farming

 

 

Westminster City Council has banned glyphosate weedkiller on all their managed outdoor space. This is one of several methods to improve green spaces and encourage native wildlife to flourish in Westminster. The ban applies to all council managed outdoor spaces and housing estates – and the council is encouraging all landowners in the borough to follow suit. This follows from the previous phasing out of the use of glyphosate in parks, play areas, streets, and open spaces in 2020. Pro Landscaper

 

 

In America’s biolabs, hundreds of accidents have gone undisclosed to the public. The Intercept obtained over 5,500 pages of National Institutes of Health (NIH) documents, including 18 years of laboratory incident reports, detailing hundreds of accidents. In 2013, a University of Wisconsin lab had two accidents, a spill and a needle prick, involving modified strains of H5N1 avian influenza. The accidents prompted a stern reaction from NIH, which called the lab's safety procedures "unacceptable". The NIH was also unimpressed by a university plan to quarantine all exposed researchers at home. The agency threatened to end the lab’s grant unless the quarantine plan was changed. The Intercept

 

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!