In an excellent video interview with Philippa Jamieson of Soil & Health NZ, the genetic engineer Prof Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, New Zealand explains in simple, non-technical language why new GM techniques should not be deregulated. Prof Heinemann said people are being manipulated by GMO industry language into accepting the deregulation of new GMOs. He implied that the argument that some new GMOs "could happen in nature" is a meaningless distraction because even if some new GMOs are conventional-like, this doesn't mean they don't pose risks – and it's no reason to deregulate them. Prof Heinemann said deregulation is in reality just a way of removing labelling and people's power to choose non-GMO. GMWatch

 

 

The Environment Agency of Austria has co-published a study that analyses the potential risks of products of new genomic techniques (NGT). Like older-style genetic engineering methods, NGTs are also based on biological processes that cannot guarantee precision. A wide range of unintended genetic changes are possible; these include smaller or larger genetic changes adjacent to the target sequence, i.e. unintended “on-target” mutations. Unintended effects are also caused by the fact that the intended genetic changes will often not only result in the expression of a specific desired characteristic, but will simultaneously affect other functions or traits in the modified cells or organisms. The study stresses the urgent need for a robust risk assessment of all NGT plants. To address risk issues of NGT plants comprehensively, a precautionary, case-specific approach, taking into account the available experience with comparable products, is needed. The risk assessment for NGT products should be based on similar principles as adopted for GMOs and should address nutritional safety and quality, as well as effects on the environment. The assessment also needs to address off-target modifications and other unintended genetic changes, which remain in the final NGT product and might result in adverse effects. The study itself is here. TWN Info Service on Biosafety

 

 

Ami des Lobbies and POLLINIS have made an educational and very funny video on the "new GMOs" deregulation scam. It's in French but is now available with subtitles in English, Spanish and Italian. Ami des Lobbies on Youtube

 

 

The Institute for Responsible Technology in the US has made an educational short video, "Seven reasons why gene editing is dangerous and unpredictable", targeted to policymakers of all global regions and others who want a short and simple explanation of the topic. IRT

 

 

In May 2022, Health Canada announced that it will exempt many GM foods from the “novel food” regulations — specifically, plants that were produced through gene editing techniques that do not involve the integration of genes from different species. This means that there will be no government safety assessments for these new GMOs. On May 3, 2023, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced a similar decision for gene-edited seeds. The government has also given away its authority to request information from the product developers about these GM foods and seeds. This means that the regulators cannot ask to see any corporate safety data, or even basic information about how a product was genetically engineered. In fact, the government may not even know about the existence of some of these gene-edited products on the market. The industry is invited to voluntarily disclose new, unregulated products coming to market. Media investigations in 2022 and 2023 uncovered a trail of documents showing that federal government departments worked directly with the biotechnology industry to design the new regulatory guidance for gene-edited GMOs, in a committee they called the “Tiger Team”. Watershed Sentinel

 

 

Hybrid Bt cotton, the only commercialised GM crop in India, has failed conclusively, writes Aruna Rodrigues, lead petitioner in the public interest lawsuit in the Supreme Court of India for a moratorium on GMOs since 2005. Based on this failure and the evidence on GM crops to date, the Union of India’s proposal to commercialise GM herbicide-tolerant (HT) mustard will destroy not just Indian mustard agriculture but citizens’ health. There have been five days of intense hearings on this matter in the Supreme Court (SC), ending on 18 January 2024, following the GMO Public Interest Writ filed almost 20 years ago in 2005 by Aruna. She writes, "In these last 20 years, piecemeal hearings have dealt with submissions relating to individual crops like hybrid Bt cotton, the attempted commercialisation of hybrid Bt brinjal (2010) and now the attempt to commercialise hybrid HT mustard. The evidence provided here is a distillation of the critical inputs of those 60+ submissions based on the affidavits and studies of leading, independent scientists and experts of international renown." Dissident Voice

 

 

In December, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a Clinical Report discussing the potential danger of the herbicide glyphosate in our food supply. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. Despite the careful wording, the AAP was aggressively attacked in the media as “unscientific” and “parroting propaganda” by pesticide-protecting voices. Pediatrician Lee Evslin, a Fellow of the AAP, writes, "It is not surprising that these publications attacked so quickly and aggressively. The global sales of GBHs are expected to be 9-10 billion dollars in 2024. Thirty percent of that market is in the US." He adds, "There is growing international scientific concern about the health effects of chronic low-level glyphosate exposure. To call the AAP unscientific for reviewing those concerns is unconscionable and incorrect." He notes the increasing evidence of connections between cancer, endocrine dysfunction and glyphosate herbicides. Civil Beat

 

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!