The EU Commission's proposal to weaken regulations around new GM plants is “scientifically unacceptable, removes the provisions of the precautionary principle and puts the public and environment at risk”, according to an analysis by the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER). ENSSER summarises the problems with the Commission's proposal: “Critical scientific expertise and its supporting scientific evidence was completely ignored. The proposal follows exclusively the guidance and assertions of the public and private biotechnology sector – and is therefore to be classified as one-sided.” ENSSER concludes, “To exempt technologies and their applications from any risk assessments on the basis that they are new (including those that have not even been developed yet) is anti-scientific and reckless and does in no way comply with the obligations of governments and regulators to ensure safety for the people and the environment. New genetic modification technologies (and their applications) that have not been trialled and tested for years, including under real field conditions over years and systematically assessed for their impacts on health and environment, should by definition not be exempted but rather strictly regulated and monitored.” GMWatch

 

 

The agriculture ministers of Germany and Austria oppose the Commission’s plans to deregulate new genetic techniques EU-wide, though whether they can form a united front against Brussels’ proposal to protect their large organic sectors remains to be seen. “The precautionary principle must continue to be taken into account,” said German Agriculture Minister Cem Özdemir in a statement. “Whether the present draft does justice to this must be doubted,” he added. Criticism also came from Özdemir’s Austrian counterpart, Norbert Totschnig of the conservative ÖVP, who, after having remained quiet after the Commission presented its proposal last week, expressed strong criticism when asked by EURACTIV. “Austria’s agriculture is GMO-free in cultivation, and we want to maintain this pioneering role,” he explained. The Commission’s proposal “counteracts the Austrian way of agriculture and deprives consumers of their freedom of choice,” he added. EURACTIV

 

 

Damning new documents show scientist Kristian Andersen calling the lab leak origin theory for SARS-CoV-2 "highly likely" – after writing the "Proximal Origin" paper in Nature Medicine saying the exact opposite! The paper was the subject of a hearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, which coincided with the release of a report by the subcommittee devoted to the “Proximal Origin” paper. It contains limited screenshots of emails and Slack messages among the authors, laying out its case that the scientists believed one thing in private, that lab escape was likely, while working to produce a paper saying the opposite in public. After having put together the first draft of the paper, Andersen responded to two colleagues who wanted to conclusively rule out the lab scenario: “The main issue is that accidental escape is in fact highly likely – it’s not some fringe theory.” But the paper they were drafting argued the opposite and would be used to label the possibility of a lab leak as a fringe conspiracy, confidently asserting, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.” As well as reading this interesting article, see comments by science journalists on these revelations here and here. 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!