New GM techniques – or "NGTs", as gene editing technologies like CRISPR/Cas are being labelled – can create both intended and unintended changes in the genome that would be unlikely to occur with conventional breeding methods, including the non-targeted mutagenesis breeding methods that have been used for several decades by a minority of conventional breeders. This is the main message of a review of the scientific literature recently published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. The authors of the review explain that the biological effects of these changes on the health of consumers and the environment might also be different from those arising from conventional breeding and may pose risks. This directly contradicts the rationale put forward by the GMO lobby to justify the deregulation of new GMOs – that the changes brought about by new GM techniques are no different to those that might be caused by conventional breeding, and so there are no novel risks that need assessing. GMWatch

 

 

Food and agribusiness giants have coalesced around the term "regenerative agriculture" to signal their commitment to climate change and sustainability. This year's COP28 will showcase regenerative agriculture prominently, and the term is gaining traction in policy circles, investor conferences and supermarket shelves. But it is just the latest iteration of an ongoing corporate strategy to undercut support for agroecology and shore up corporate profits amid multiple crises caused by the model of industrial agriculture they depend on. And what the corporates mean by "regenerative agriculture" is a far cry from what the pioneers of the concept intended. GRAIN

 

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!