06/November/20

 

In countries around the world, powerful lobbies are asking governments to weaken regulations around genetically modified foods and crops in order to allow new gene-edited products a smooth path to market. In a video webinar, Myths and Truths of Gene-Edited Foods, molecular geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou and GMWatch editor Claire Robinson explain why gene-edited foods and crops could prove dangerous to our health. They expose the false and misleading nature of many of the claims that are being made about the potential and safety of these new products. They also explain what type of regulation is needed to protect the public and the environment. The presentation includes an in-depth explanation by Dr Antoniou of the science of gene editing and where things can go wrong. GMWatch

 

 

The US District Court for the Northern District of California has ruled that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) violated core environmental laws in approving GM salmon. The Court ruled that FDA ignored the serious environmental consequences of approving GM salmon and the full extent of plans to grow and commercialize the salmon in the US and around the world, violating the National Environmental Policy Act. The Court also ruled that FDA’s unilateral decision that genetically engineered salmon could have no possible effect on highly-endangered, wild Atlantic salmon was wrong, in violation of the Endangered Species Act. The Court ordered FDA to go back to the drawing board and FDA must now thoroughly analyze the environmental consequences of an escape of GM salmon into the wild. GMWatch

 

 

In the late 1990s, before Tasmania’s GM moratorium was in place, there were Monsanto and Bayer field trial sites of herbicide-resistant GM canola across the state. For the two decades since the end of those GM trials, these sites have been audited yearly by the state government because of “the likely persistence of GM canola seeds in the soil”. Despite efforts to exterminate the trial crops, GM canola has persisted in the environment, and, even after the passage of two decades, some trial sites still report the presence of volunteer (rogue) canola plants. This situation points to the conclusion that any jurisdiction considering allowing GM crops needs to consider them as invasive species and put in place biosecurity mechanisms. Comment by Third World Network on conference paper by John Paull

 

 

The Autumn 2020 issue of the Biodynamic Association's magazine, the Star & Furrow, contains an article by Lawrence Woodward in which he states that some in the organic sector believe that gene editing might be compatible with organic standards: "It seems that the industry propaganda about the potential benefit and absence of risk claimed for the technology is undermining the long-standing coalition for precaution." He explains that "Genome editing is clearly invasive and is not holistic" and recommends that all in the sector address "grey areas" in the food chain to order to "protect society from further slippage into a reductionist, technocratic and unhealthy farm and food future". [GMW: This article requires one correction: The GMWatch team, consisting of Jonathan Matthews and Claire Robinson and some much-valued volunteers, are not members of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), as the article says, though we have featured the work of ENSSER on GMWatch. ENSSER is an organisation for scientists, which Jonathan and Claire are not.] The Star & Furrow