In a significant interim order, on 3 November 2022, India's Supreme Court bench comprising Honorable Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia ordered status quo on the GEAC's decision of 18 October 2022 and subsequent decision of the Ministry of Environment and Forests of 25 October 2022 to allow environmental release of herbicide-tolerant (HT) genetically modified mustard DMH11 in five states, based on an interim application filed by Ms Aruna Rodrigues in her pending writ petition. This ruling means no environmental release will be permitted, at least until the case is considered further on 10 November. GMWatch

 

 

Glyphosate exposure during pregnancy is linked to lower birth weights for babies, a new study of pregnant women has found. Lower birth weights are linked to many health problems later in life, from diabetes to heart problems. Glyphosate weedkiller is used on most GM crops grown in the world, which are engineered to tolerate being sprayed with it. In the study, published in October in Environmental Health, the researchers also found that mothers with high-risk pregnancies who had higher glyphosate levels in their urine during the first trimester were also more likely to have babies admitted to neonatal intensive care units, or NICUs. GMWatch

 

 

Questions surrounding labelling, animal welfare and the impact on devolved nations were raised regarding the UK Government’s Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, which had its third reading in Parliament on 31 October. Labour Shadow Farming Minister Daniel Zeichner branded it "a vague, thin Bill" which "lacked effective regulatory framework". Zeichner pointed to public concerns about animal welfare, insisting safeguards should be put in place to ensure gene editing would not mean animals were "kept in poorer, more crowded, stressful conditions". He also said studies by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) had made it clear consumers "overwhelmingly want effective regulation of gene-edited products, with transparent information and clear labelling". He said: “The Government are trying to gloss over the issues by inventing the entirely non-scientific term ‘precision breeding’. Frankly, it has been invented by the Government for their convenience and is a misnomer." All the amendments to the bill proposed by concerned MPs were rejected, due to the government's large majority in the Commons. Hansard

 

 

The sign-on statement by scientists and policy experts opposing the use of the term "precision breeding" to describe gene editing on the grounds that it is technically and scientifically inaccurate now has 100 signatures. [GMW: It's gratifying to see that Labour Shadow Farming Minister Daniel Zeichner agrees (see above). Further signatories are invited to apply: https://forms.gle/17VAFQvav6Avsi1B6.] Scientists’ and policy experts’ statement

 

 

After the UK government announced that it will be relaxing rules on gene editing, Christopher Price, CEO of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust discusses the potential risks of gene editing for livestock, including deformities and other unintended effects. He adds that most of the problems that gene editing seeks to address are manmade, resulting from industrial intensive farming systems. Native livestock breeds were bred to thrive in our landscape. If the right breed is kept in the right place, at the right density, health and welfare will be better anyway, and the problems gene editing seeks to address far less frequent. You don’t need gene editing to ensure high welfare if the overall system is right. Wildlife and Countryside Link

 

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!