The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) has published a position statement on the CRISPR/Cas gene editing technique in agriculture and horticulture. The 9-page statement begins, "CRISPR/Cas has captured the imagination of scientists, the media, and the public. It is claimed to be capable of making intensive agriculture more sustainable, reducing pesticide use, producing disease- and pest-resistant crops, improving the nutritional value of crops, making crops more tolerant to environmental stresses such as drought, and preventing livestock animal diseases. However, CRISPR/Cas is simply a method of targeting a genetic modification... to a predetermined location in the genome.... there is no evidence that crops and livestock animals developed using CRISPR/Cas and other gene editing techniques will fulfil the promises being made for them. On the contrary, they pose risks that must be acknowledged, studied, and controlled through robust regulation." The statement was sent to the Agriculture Commission of the Dutch Parliament, which held a Round Table on CRISPR/Cas on 31 January 2023. ENSSER

 

 

Do you subscribe to our GMWatch Reviews? They provide a convenient roundup of the month's news, divided into subject areas. The latest ones are here and here and another is due in a few days. You can subscribe here. GMWatch

 

 

The European Green Deal’s targets of expanding organic agriculture to 25%, halving pesticide use and risk, and protecting sensitive areas from negative pesticide impacts by 2030 are increasingly making natural pesticides permitted in organic farming the subject of political interest. While many see natural pesticides as promising alternatives to synthetic pesticides, the European pesticide industry warns of “ecological trade-offs implied by an increase of organic agriculture” such as an “increased overall volume of pesticide use in Europe.” On behalf of IFOAM Organics Europe, the European umbrella organisation for organic agriculture GLOBAL 2000 subjected these alleged “ecological trade-offs” to a fact check. They found that synthetic active substances allowed in conventional farming are far more hazardous and problematic than natural active substances approved in organic farming. Plus, organic pesticides are not often used, as intelligent system design means they are not often needed. BioEco Actual

 

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!