“Animal-free” dairy or meat products that taste nearly identical to a traditional animal product are often anything but “natural”, writes Max Goldberg of Organic Insider. Aware of what consumers may find out and not wanting to make the same PR mistake twice, the GMO industry has introduced deceptive names such as synthetic biology, cultured meat, gene editing, precision fermentation and cellular-based seafood. Further muddying the waters is that these companies have been funded not just by the likes of Bayer and BASF, but by Silicon Valley heavyweight investors. Even more, the organic community is being aggressively courted. The companies are purchasing booths at Natural Products Expo West, a show that most attendees believe is only for “natural” products. And these booths share aisles with USDA organic and natural product companies. “Companies call these things ‘synthetic biology’ and ‘fermentation technology’, but these foods are all just GMOs,” said Michael Hansen, PhD, Senior Staff Scientist at Consumer Reports. “They are using terms people do not understand, so that people will not realise these are GMO ingredients.” Some organic companies are concerned and are stepping in to raise awareness of the issue. GMWatch

 

 

The US Environmental Protection Agency has in effect ignored a 2020 federal court order prohibiting the use of Monsanto and other producers’ toxic dicamba-based herbicides that are destroying millions of acres of cropland, harming endangered species and increasing cancer risks for farmers, new fillings in the lawsuit charge. Instead of permanently yanking the products from the market after the 2020 order, the EPA only required industry to add further application instructions to the herbicides’ labels before reapproving the products. A late 2021 EPA investigation found the same problems persist even with new directions added to the label, but the agency still allows Monsanto, BASF and other producers to continue using dicamba. “The new litigation was prompted by the EPA’s decision to ignore the court’s ruling and move forward with reapproving the pesticide,” plaintiffs in the lawsuit wrote in a statement. “In re-approving dicamba, the EPA once again failed to weigh the true costs to farmers and the environment.” The Guardian

 

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!