Last week the European Commission announced a proposal to loosen EU rules on GMOs. Plants that have had up to 20 genetic modifications which could conceivably have occurred naturally or by conventional breeding will be passed as safe and the food products they are used to make will be sold without warning labels. The Commission claims this move – which now has to be scrutinised and ratified by the EU Parliament – will allow farmers to develop more resilient crops with higher nutritional value while reducing the use of chemical pesticides. Critics say it will leave European farming dependent on new super-strains of plants developed by big agribusiness, while consumers will no longer know that what they eat has been genetically modified. “If companies who develop GMOs are so convinced this is a good thing, why do they want to hide it, so that consumers don’t have the transparency to decide what they eat?” asks Mute Schimpf from Friends of the Earth Europe. The New European

 

 

Regarding new GM crops, we see the same promises emerging as in the 1970s and 1980s: Genetic engineering is going to save the world, eradicate hunger and make the use of agricultural poisons unnecessary, writes Anja Hazekamp MEP. But the reality of the first-generation genetic engineering varieties back then turned out to be just the opposite. They led to monocultures, large-scale deforestation of the Amazon, exponential growth in the use of the highly toxic and probably carcinogenic RoundUp, billion-dollar profits for Monsanto and desperate farmers. According to the industry, none of this applies to "new" types of genetic engineering crops. Yet this claim is not substantiated, either scientifically or in practice. Indeed, research shows that "new" gene techniques like CRISPR/Cas are also used for more of the same and do not produce any crop that adds value to sustainable agriculture. English translation of Dutch language article published by NRC

 

 

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has shockingly given positive advice to move forward with the prolongation of the use of Europe's most widely used herbicide, glyphosate, despite a series of data gaps and outstanding issues. In its conclusions, it highlights that the potential genotoxicity (DNA-damaging effects) of impurities and consumers risk assessment remained incomplete. The potential of glyphosate products to cause developmental neurotoxicity and harm the microbiome and biodiversity is clearly recognised. Nevertheless, EFSA proposes to continue with the approval process by sending the ball to the field of Member States. EFSA, similar to ECHA (European Chemicals Agency) and the national agencies, base their assessments predominantly on industry studies. The deeply flawed EU pesticide authorisation system neglects a wealth of independent and peer-reviewed scientific studies that link glyphosate to severe health and environmental problems. Many studies prove that glyphosate is genotoxic, neurotoxic, damages the gut microbiome and causes serious damage to soil, aquatic life and biodiversity. Pesticide Action Network Europe

 

 

A new review of the scientific literature has found that both glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides have multiple effects on various non-target organisms in terrestrial ecosystems. Regardless of the fact that glyphosate may be less acutely toxic than many other herbicide active ingredients, the review notes that "Unintended side-effects on a range of organisms, including microorganisms, invertebrates, and vertebrates, are evident especially upon chronic exposure. The major mechanisms of these effects are oxidative stress, metabolic dysregulation, metabolome disturbances, endocrine disruptions and genotoxicity including direct DNA damage." The review concludes, "Based on the available literature on terrestrial ecotoxicity, and given the drastic decline in biodiversity, we conclude that the continued high use of GBHs [glyphosate-based herbicides], resulting in increased exposure and risk, cannot be considered ecologically sustainable." Environmental Sciences Europe

 

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!