To make it easier for people to find and access our information on gene editing, we've started to consolidate our most important resources in a new central hub that is linked to from the front page of our website, as viewed on a computer. It's called "GENE EDITING MYTHS, RISKS, & RESOURCES" – check it out at the link above. We'll be adding some of our core articles on gene editing over the coming days and weeks. GMWatch

 

 

An international coalition of scholars, advocates, and social change organisations has released its "Social Justice and Human Rights Principles for Global Deliberations on Heritable Human Genome Editing". This document is the first to explicitly centre social justice principles and human rights in the high-stakes deliberations on the potential use of heritable human genome editing – that is, altering the DNA of embryos or gametes to result in genetically modified children. The document concludes that in light of the principles, "it is clear that there is no persuasive justification for pursuing heritable human genome editing". GMWatch

 

 

Mexico's president has proposed modifying the constitution to ban GMOs and safeguard maize as a pillar of the country's identity and food sovereignty. The environment minister has also emphasised the risks associated with GMO crops and the use of harmful glyphosate. Unsurprisingly, Big Ag is not happy about the proposal to declare Mexico a GMO-free country. GMWatch on Twitter/X @GMWatch

 

 

United States commodity organisations have cheered on the US government as it tries to get Mexico’s restrictions on GM corn declared in violation of our trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, arguing that it cuts farmers’ export markets and sales revenues. But what if Mexico’s modest restrictions could instead turn out to benefit US farmers who shift to premium non-GM corn markets as international corn prices fall? It sounds counter-intuitive, but it might just be true, writes Ken Roseboro. FoodTank

 

 

New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has released its decision on “null segregants”, defining them as “not genetically engineered organisms”. This followed the NZ government research institute Plant & Food applying to the EPA to determine if “null segregants” were considered to be genetically engineered (GE) organisms. GE Free New Zealand is among those who are unhappy about this decision. Null segregants are GE plants that have been cross-bred to the point where the novel genetically engineered constructs, such as a foreign gene from another species (a transgene), have been “removed but the offspring still express the desired trait change”. In GMWatch's view – one that is supported by the science underpinning genetic modification as well as, legally speaking, by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety – null segregants are new combinations of genetic material and may present new or increased risks. Therefore, they need to be regulated and the trigger for that regulation should be the use of genetic modification techniques in their development. GMWatch

 

 

Beyond Pesticides, an advocacy group, has launched a legal case to counter a nationwide campaign by chemical manufacturers aiming to shield themselves from liability cases related to pesticide products. This legal framework is critical for those seeking redress from exposure to glyphosate-based products like Roundup. The industry's push for legislation in state legislatures to protect them from future liability litigation comes after facing numerous jury awards and settlements for adverse health effects. The outcome of the San Diego trial could have far-reaching consequences, potentially influencing legislative efforts and the legal landscape for pesticide litigation. In this case, the jury, for the first time, could hear evidence that the EPA's conclusion on glyphosate's safety has been overturned by a previous ruling in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The significance of the jury being exposed to this viewpoint cannot be understated, as it could influence not only the outcome of this trial but also the future of glyphosate litigation BNN

 

 

In the US, pesticide and chemical manufacturers have descended on state legislators with legislation to shield them from liability lawsuits filed by people injured from exposure to their products. So far, the industry has been successful in getting their bill introduced in at least four states. This activity is spurred on by the thousands of cases involving Roundup/glyphosate that have resulted in large jury awards and settlements against Bayer/Monsanto in the billions of dollars. While sponsors of these bills claim that the labels on pesticide products provide sufficient warning of hazards, users have been misled by advertising that falsely touts product safety. Reminiscent of previous state legislative battles, the chemical industry is now leaning on elected officials, whether in state legislatures or the US Congress, to do its bidding in blocking, or preempting, court action. If you're in the US, take action: Tell your state legislators to protect the right of citizens to seek redress against pesticide manufacturers for harm caused by their products! Beyond Pesticides

 

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!