A SCIENTIFIC CRITIQUE OF LEOPOLDINA AND EASAC STATEMENTS

The Greens/EFA Group has commissioned the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) and Critical Scientists Switzerland (CSS) to critically assess the scientific foundation of a statement published by German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina in 2019 on the regulation of genome-edited plants in the EU.

These are the main findings of the scientific critique:

"The EASAC-endorsed Leopoldina Statement on the regulation of ‘genome edited’ plants is based on a limited number of selected publications. It fails to reflect the findings of at least 200 highly relevant published scientific studies.

These studies document adverse effects of existing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on the environment and human health, and demonstrate the potential for negative outcomes of more recent genetic engineering tools.

EU must stop wasting time trying to find loopholes to allow these new GMOs onto our fields and plates, says Mute Schimpf, Friends of the Earth Europe

On Friday April 30 2021, the European Commission will publish a study which will have a key influence over whether or not a new generation of genetically modified crops will be exempt from EU safety, traceability and transparency rules.

The study has already attracted controversy. Friends of the Earth Europe has criticised the European Commission for ignoring its own procedures by allowing the biotech industry to dominate the responses to the stakeholder consultation, as well as failing to respect transparency protocols.

DowDupont maize (Corteva) is resistant to herbicides and produces insecticides

The first application for approval of CRISPR/Cas plants is now in the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) register. Maize DP915635 is resistant to the herbicide glufosinate and produces an insecticidal toxin found in specific ferns growing on trees. DowDupont is marketing its genetically engineered plants under the company name Corteva, and also has filed several patent applications for the plants, some of which have already been granted in Europe.

The maize was generated with a combination of old and new genetic engineering methods (GE): to deliver the CRISPR/Cas ‘gene scissors’ into the plant cells, they are first bombarded with small particles (‘gene canon’). In consequence, the cells produced the enzyme for the gene scissors which then inserted a DNA-sequence into the maize genome. This additional DNA-sequence is meant to facilitate the insertion of other genes, and therefore is called a ‘landing pad’. In a next step, again involving ‘old GE’, a further gene construct is inserted into the ‘landing pad’ in the maize genome, conferring resistance to the herbicide and producing the fern toxin.

DowDupont (Corteva) maize is tolerant to herbicides and produces insecticides

The first application for approval of CRISPR/Cas plants is now in the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) register. Maize DP915635 is tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate and produces an insecticidal toxin found in specific ferns growing on trees. DowDupont is marketing its genetically engineered plants under the company name Corteva, and also has filed several patent applications for the plants, some of which have already been granted in Europe.

The maize was generated with a combination of old and new genetic engineering methods (GE). To deliver the CRISPR/Cas "gene scissors" into the plant cells, they are first bombarded with small particles with a gene gun (an "old GE" method). In consequence, the cells produced the enzyme for the gene scissors which then inserted a DNA sequence into the maize genome. This additional DNA sequence is meant to facilitate the insertion of other genes and therefore is called a "landing pad". In a next step, again involving "old GE", a further gene construct is inserted into the "landing pad" in the maize genome, conferring tolerance to the herbicide and producing the fern toxin.

A majority of European consumers want to see compulsory labelling on food products containing genetically modified crops, according to a recent Ipsos report, but industry players insist that this is impossible to implement.

The report, commissioned by the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament and carried out by the polling organisation Ipsos, surveyed thousands of consumers across all 27 member states between February and March of this year in an attempt to gauge their understanding and attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) crops.

An unprecedented drive is under way to promote new genetic modification techniques that are collectively termed gene editing – most notably CRISPR/Cas. The agricultural biotech industry claims that these techniques can provide solutions to our food and farming problems, including the challenges posed by climate change, pests, and diseases.

This report, published by the Greens/EFA in the European Parliament and authored by GMWatch editor Claire Robinson with technical input by molecular geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou, looks at the claims and shows them to be at best misleading and at worst deceptive. It shows that gene editing is a costly and potentially dangerous distraction from the real solutions to the challenges faced by our food and farming sectors.

In this new episode of EU Watchdog Radio we dive into the covert lobby tactics used by the biotechnology industry to get a new generation of GMO’s to be used in agriculture, deregulated in the EU. Why are agrochemical companies like Bayer and Corteva to against having European safety rules? And why is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation financing this lobby-campaign?

A few decades ago some agrochemical companies started selling patented seeds created with genetic modification, for growing plants called GMO’s. They are now trying to promote a next generation of GMO’s using new genetic editing techniques like Crispr/Cas. But the companies do not want these to be called new GMO’s because in Europe those have a bad reputation and track record. The first generation GMOs did not live up to the expectations that were created back then.

An Ipsos opinion poll shows that the vast majority (86%) of Europeans who have heard of genetically modified (GM) crops want food produced from these plants to be labelled as such. It also shows that the majority (68%) of respondents who have heard of new GM techniques, such as CRISPR, want food produced with these techniques also labelled as GM. The polling organisation, Ipsos conducted the representative survey between 11 February and 5 March 2021 in all 27 EU countries on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament.

The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food) has released a new report in collaboration with the ETC Group: 'A Long Food Movement: Transforming Food Systems by 2045'.

We map out two very different futures for food systems, people and the planet. First, what do the next 25 years have in store under “agribusiness-as-usual”? The keys of the food system are handed over to data platforms, private equity firms, and e-commerce giants, putting the food security of billions at the mercy of high-risk, AI-controlled farming systems, and accelerating environmental breakdown.

BRUSSELS, 30 MARCH 2021 – Today, a large coalition of 162 civil society, farmers and business organisations calls on Vice President of the Commission Timmermans to ensure all organisms derived from new genetic engineering techniques continue to be regulated in accordance with existing EU GMO standards – upholding the precautionary principle, safeguarding a high level of protection and the right of farmers and consumers to choose what they plant and eat.

The call comes as the Commission is expected to present its views on the future regulation of “new genomic techniques” at the end of April, based on an in-house study mandated by the EU Council of Ministers. Since the European Court of Justice ruled in 2018 that organisms obtained with new genetic modification techniques must be regulated under the EU’s existing GMO laws, there has been intense lobbying from the agriculture biotech industry to weaken the legislation.