Three panelists have been empowered to settle the ongoing trade dispute between the US and Mexico over Mexico's decision to restrict imports of US-produced genetically modified corn — one each from Switzerland, Mexico and the US. Some NGOs have been permitted to submit comments on the case, though the applications of the National Farmers Union of Canada and Farm Action of the US to submit comments have been refused. Those groups could have offered a useful farmers’ voice, arguing that Mexico’s GM corn restrictions represent a market opportunity, not a loss, for US and Canadian farmers, who could earn 20 percent higher prices for their exports by switching to non-GM corn. More worryingly, in its response inviting Friends of the Earth (FOE) to submit comments on the science justifying Mexico’s concerns about the safety of GM corn in its tortillas, the panel stipulated that such comments must “exclude any discussion of ‘glyphosate-based herbicides and Bt endotoxins', which is a factual issue not before this Panel, and focusing solely on the ‘human health and environmental impacts of the GM white corn.'” Timothy A. Wise commented, "Exclude what? Those *are* the main human health concerns." Most GM white corn from the US — which is not the familiar sweetcorn — has both glyphosate-tolerant and Bt traits, so most GM corn coming into Mexico may present risks from both Bt and glyphosate residues. Indeed, both have been found in tortillas and other corn-based consumer products in Mexico. Food Tank

 

 

Biotech firms seem to have succeeded in convincing the European Commission that we need new genetically modified crops to tackle climate change. They argue that by enhancing crops’ resistance to drought or improving their ability to capture carbon, climate change may no longer seem such a daunting challenge. If this seems too good to be true, unfortunately, it is, write two academics, Anneleen Denis and Barbara Van Dyck. They write that biotech firms have taken advantage of growing concerns about climate change to influence the European Commission with an orchestrated lobbying campaign. The firms use the terms “gene editing” or “precision breeding”, which may sound reassuring, but they are essentially marketing terms and say nothing about the accuracy of the techniques used or their potentially negative effects. Studies have shown that new genetic techniques can alter the traits of a species to an extent that would be impossible, or at least very unlikely, using conventional breeding. They can also trigger substantial unintended changes in the genetic material of plants. But perhaps most importantly, genetically modified plants aren’t the solution to the climate crisis. The Conversation

 

 

The St Louis No Spray Coalition has spent the last two and a half years trying to get the city to limit its use of pesticides on public land — but they say their message has fallen mostly on deaf ears. Officials have put up “roadblock after roadblock” and repeatedly declined meetings. Public records obtained by the group showed the city used 520 gallons of Roundup in city parks from 2018 to 2021, in addition to smaller amounts of Resolve and Resolute herbicides. All three pesticides contain substances that are recognised as possible carcinogens by various agencies. River Front Times

 

 

Laboratory leaks and accidents have risen 50 per cent in Britain since COVID-19 emerged, an investigation by The Telegraph has found. The investigation into biosafety breaches at British labs reveals that in the last year "the HSE [UK Health and Safety Executive] recorded 376 incidents of release or escape of biological agents, and 634 accidental release or escape of substances liable to cause harm." The former commander of NATO’s Chemical, Bio and Nuclear Defence Forces said: “We’re all sitting on a ticking time bomb. It seems highly likely that (COVID-19) was man-made... The next pandemic is highly likely to be man-made, given the ease and unregulation of synthetic biology, and could kill millions of people.” Dr Filippa Lentzos, the co-director of the Centre for Science and Security Studies at King’s College London, said: “The global post-Covid building boom in high containment labs is not being matched by accompanying risk management policies.” The Telegraph (paywalled)

 

 

A petition by Biosafety Now! on Change.org, "Retract 'The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2' (a fraudulent paper on the origin of COVID-19)", has crossed the organisers' 5,000 signature goal. On March 17, 2020, a paper entitled “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” was published in the scientific journal Nature Medicine. The paper assessed the genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 and concluded, "Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus" and "we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible." Biosafety Now! states that this paper played an influential role in communicating the false narrative that science established that SARS-CoV-2 entered humans through natural spillover, and not through research-related spillover. Email messages and direct messages via the messaging program Slack among authors of the paper obtained under FOIA or by the US Congress and publicly released in full in July 2023, show that the authors did not believe the conclusions of the paper at the time the paper was written, at the time the paper was submitted for publication, and at the time the paper was published. Biosafety Now! Says, "They thus show that the paper was, and is, the product of scientific fraud and scientific misconduct." If you agree with the petition but haven't signed, please do so. Biosafety Now!

 

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!