The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 aims to deregulate gene-edited organisms (or, as the UK government misleadingly calls them, “precision-bred organisms, PBOs). As the government moves to implement secondary legislation that will make the Act operational by the end of March, we face the prospect of an inadequate legal framework that could adversely affect our food and farming systems for decades to come, writes Pat Thomas of Beyond GM. All signs are that Labour has simply dusted off the highly contested draft written by the previous government. This will allow PBO products to enter the marketplace without labelling or traceability – a regulatory free-for-all that was opposed by Labour (when in opposition) and other parties, by scientists, environmentalists, civil society and consumers. The geographical scope of the Act is limited to England. For Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there lies an opportunity to take a different path. Although Northern Ireland’s position remains uncertain due to its regulatory status between the UK and the EU, both Scotland and Wales have rejected the Genetic Technology Act, opposing the cultivation and sale of genome-edited organisms. Pat Thomas outlines actions that devolved nations might take to reduce the impact of the Precision Breeding Act in their territories. Beyond GM

 

 

Researchers have found that reduced content of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) enhances resistance to bacterial wilt disease and tolerance to drought stress in tomato. One of the researchers, Alberto Macho, has done an X thread on the findings. The journal publication is here. Interestingly, the GM gene-edited tomato that has been deregulated and commercialised in Japan has high levels of GABA, which is a sedative substance that is claimed to lower blood pressure. Will these high-GABA tomatoes be prone to bacterial wilt disease and less tolerant to drought? Keeping such plants regulated might have answered questions such as these. GMWatch comment on X thread by Alberto Macho, article in Plant Biotechnology Journal, and analyses by Testbiotech

 

 

A new paper with co-authors from the microbial protein company Solar Foods says the electrical energy cost of microbial protein is 69.3-73 MWh/t protein (or kWh/kg). Chris Smaje, author of A Small Farm Future, comments, "This settles the energy issue". He explains that the 16.7 kWh/kg figure given in George Monbiot's book Regenesis is over 4 times too low. Regenesis promoted microbial proteins as an environmentally- and climate-friendly alternative to livestock farming. But Smaje says, "Time for George to recant!" The new paper is here. Chris Smaje comment on paper in Nature Communications

 

 

History has shown that so long as inequality goes unchecked, no amount of technology can ensure people are well fed, writes Jennifer Clapp, Member of the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, in an article that reflects GMWatch's views in the context of GMO industry claims that their products will "feed the world". Clapp writes, "Today, the world produces more food per person than ever before. Yet hunger and malnutrition persist in every corner of the globe — even, and increasingly, in some of its wealthiest countries. The major drivers of food insecurity are well known: conflict, poverty, inequality, economic shocks and escalating climate change. In other words, the causes of hunger are fundamentally political and economic. The urgency of the hunger crisis has prompted 150 Nobel and World Food Prize laureates to call for 'moonshot' technological and agricultural innovations to boost food production, meaning monumental and lofty efforts. However, they largely ignored hunger’s root causes — and the need to confront powerful entities and make courageous political choices." The Conversation

 

We hope you’ve found this newsletter interesting. Please support our work with a one-off or regular donation. Thank you!