Articles

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.

The EASAC-endorsed Leopoldina Statement, demanding that the EU stops regulating ‘genome-edited’ plants, represents the narrow interests of ‘genome editors’ but it does not demonstrate the scientific objectivity or balance required, nor does it represent any consensus in the scientific community at large beyond the self-interested advocates. The EASAC-endorsed Leopoldina Statement is biased and does not withstand scientific scrutiny. ENSSER and CSS, in a scientific critique of the Leopoldina Statement, urgently call for stringent regulation of ‘genome editing’ to protect public and environmental safety. The so-called ‘genome editing’ techniques, just like the older techniques of genetic modification, give rise to known as well as inadvertently generated risks. Their potential for dual use, abuse and accidental misuse is considerably higher than that of the older techniques and warrants even stricter surveillance. So does their application as gene drives.

Gene drive technology carries high risks. Yet it is being promoted by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as a solution to malaria. On the occasion of World Malaria Day, the Stop Gene Drives campaign is launching a project that presents different perspectives on the issue of malaria control and presents alternative, possibly less risky approaches and innovations to combat malaria.

In this interview Mareike Imken, coordinator of the European Stop Gene Drives Campaign explains the reasoning behind this project.

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.

Activists from Japanese consumer organizations and farmers’ groups protested again against the unregulated GABA tomato on Earth Day 22 April 2021. Sanatech Seed is introducing its genome-edited tomato this spring without any safety checks and no mandatory labelling. “It is a genetically modified food and consumers have no idea if it is safe or not, and no way of avoiding it, once it reaches the market,” said one of the speakers at the protest action outside Sanatech’s offices in central Tokyo. This is the second effort to stop the release of the GMO tomato, which is said to be engineered to have “high levels of GABA” without much research to support the claims. Consumers Union of Japan, the No! GMO Campaign and other groups want to stop the introduction before it is too late.

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.

As the European Parliament is preparing its reaction (own-initiative report) to the EU Farm to Fork Strategy, civil society organisations in the areas of environment, consumers, food systems, animal welfare, health, consumer co-operatives, farming, fisheries, development, social justice, climate, and forestry have come together to set out 10 key priorities which they call on MEPs to endorse in their report.

(.....)

Priority 7

Promote precaution and farmers’ rights before technological innovation

Related paragraphs in the draft EP own initiative report: Recital E, §3, §7, §8, §15, §25

The INI Report must adopt a precaution-first approach to innovation and focus on holistic solutions, such as agroecology, rather than on “techno-fixes” that ignore the systemic problems of our food system.

The report must call for new GMOs (or “Innovative Plant Breeding”, “New Genomic Techniques” or “New Breeding Techniques”) to remain regulated under the EU GMO regulations as decided by the European Court of Justice in 2018. The regulations ensure pre-market safety assessment and approval, traceability, and labelling which allow freedom of choice to both farmers and citizens.

Testbiotech warns about biotech industry influence

13 April 2021 / The Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) at the European Parliament is organising a hearing on New Genetic Engineering (New GE or genome editing) and techniques, such as CRISPR/Cas, on 15 April 2021. A recent European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) opinion will be presented at the hearing. STOA is a service to provide impartial information to the European Parliament, but the current hearing has attracted some criticism.

STOA carried out a stakeholder consultation ahead of the consultation. There is however no sign that it will publish any of the submitted comments. Testbiotech has therefore decided to publicize its input to the consultation in the interests of transparency in a backgrounder. It clearly shows that current GMO regulation is sufficient in regard to genome edited plants.

SEATTLE—Tomorrow, on Wednesday, April 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hear arguments in Center for Food Safety's (CFS) ongoing lawsuit challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval of soy leghemoglobin (a.k.a. "heme"), the novel genetically engineered (GE) color additive that makes Impossible Foods' eponymous plant-based burger, the Impossible Burger, appear to "bleed" like real meat. CFS originally filed the lawsuit in March 2020, challenging FDA's safety review of the genetically engineered color additive.