On July 5, 2023, the European Commission adopted a proposal to deregulate GMOs. In particular, it proposes to change the definition of a GMO. As a result, most current GMOs would no longer be considered as such. They would therefore be exempt from the risk assessment, detection and traceability methods, labelling and post-marketing monitoring required under Directive 2001/18. The proposed semantics are far-sighted, aimed at anticipating future and as yet unknown biotechnological developments, with a very broad deregulation proposed. One thing is already certain: The European Commission’s ambition is to have virtually no plants defined as GMOs in Europe in the decades to come (and therefore subject to risk assessment, authorisation, labelling and traceability). The aim is nothing less than to change the European definition of GMOs, which has been in force for over thirty years. Inf'OGM

 

 

A first discussion about new genomic techniques (new GM techniques) saw many EU agriculture ministers welcome the European Commission’s proposed loosening of the bloc’s gene editing rules as a building block for sustainable farming, while others voiced concerns over potential risks. Ministers from Spain, France, Finland, and Italy supported the proposal. But clear criticism came from Hungary and Austria, who stressed that a way of farming without GMOs must remain possible. “GMO-free agricultural production is anchored in our constitution,” the Hungarian representative stressed. “For us, this is a matter of national sovereignty.” Austrian ambassador Gregor Schusterschitz said the country already goes “beyond the aims of the Green Deal and these achievements cannot be jeopardised”. Austria is the EU country with the highest share of organic farming. [GMW: This article contains a quote from Food Safety Commissioner Stella Kyriakides that is an outright falsehood: Kyriakides claims that the proposal "does not lower the bar on safety and the precautionary principle, and it builds on a robust and thorough impact assessment". In reality the proposal would exempt vast numbers of GMOs from safety assessments altogether.] Euractiv

 

 

Kenya's High Court has extended the orders barring the importation of GMOs. This comes even as it set the hearing of the petition challenging the decision of the government to import GMOs from September 4 to 7. The orders were issued on 28th November 2022 after city lawyer Paul Mwangi approached the court seeking the conservatory orders to preserve the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the petition. Capital News

 

 

Spearheaded by Global Justice Ecology Project, the International Campaign to STOP GE Trees brought together members from Argentina, Canada, Chile, Germany, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, and the US to Brazil to document the devastating impacts of industrial eucalyptus plantations on Indigenous and local communities and their territories. They also spoke to these communities about the worsening of these impacts if plantations of genetically engineered eucalyptus trees are commercialised, as is proposed. Global Justice Ecology Project

 

 

On 6 July, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said it had found no “critical areas of concern” for human, animal and environmental health from the use of glyphosate in agriculture. “No critical areas of concern” sounds reassuring – and it has been quoted over and over again by glyphosate promoters and in news reports. But EFSA's own definition of the phrase is so perverse that it gives huge cause for concern. As Thomas Backhaus, professor of ecotoxicology at the University of Gothenburg and director of its Center for Future Risk Assessment and Management, explains, its definition means that, even if all but one of the proposed glyphosate uses are problematic, they still don’t qualify as a "critical area of concern". That explains how EFSA could acknowledge, for example, that 12 of 23 proposed uses of glyphosate result in “high long-term risk to mammals” without considering that there is a critical area of concern. GMWatch

 

 

The BBC has been accused of “selling the public’s trust” by producing “totally biased” documentaries on the future of sustainable food sponsored by Corteva, one of the world’s largest pesticide firms, potentially in breach of the broadcaster’s editorial guidelines. The “Follow the Food” documentaries showcase “solutions” to climate breakdown, biodiversity loss, and food security in the farming sector. Sustainable farming advocates have criticised the content for favouring industrial agriculture, which is heavily dependent on chemical pesticides and fertilisers. They expressed shock that the BBC did not widely interview critics of the controversial technologies featured, including those used and sold by Corteva. DeSmog

 

 

Pesticide Action Network International and other groups have written an open letter to Qu Dongyu, director general of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, asking him once again to end the toxic alliance of his organisation with the pesticide industry lobby group CropLife International (CLI). The groups say the agreement with CLI continues to threaten the FAO’s integrity, credibility, impartiality, and independence. The groups add, “This demand to formally end the agreement with CLI gains urgency in light of information that the FAO made shipments of pesticides to several countries from 2020 to 2022” – including some highly hazardous ones such as paraquat and chlorpyrifos. Pesticide Action Network International and others

 

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!