Articles

Glyphosate, glufosinate, and dicamba all affect soil microbiomes – study

1. Herbicide selection increases antibiotic resistance in soil microbial communities – analysis by Third World Network

2. Herbicide selection promotes antibiotic resistance in soil microbiomes – the study

Scientific publication identifies important cornerstones

9 July 2021 / Experts from environmental authorities in Austria, Germany, Italy, Poland and Switzerland have published a new scientific paper that, for the first time, defines some important initial cornerstones in the environmental risk assessment of plants altered with new genomic techniques (i.e. ‘New GE’ or ‘genome editing’). The authors show that there can be no justification for only risk assessing plants with additionally inserted genes or with extensive genomic changes. Rather, all plants derived from New GE must be subjected to mandatory risk assessment.

In this regard, the authors disagree with the findings set out in a recent EU Commission report, which suggests that only specific categories of New GE plants should be subjected to mandatory risk assessment. The authors of the new publication state: “With a view to the wide range of plant species, GE methods and traits that need to be considered, there is no safety by default for whole groups of GE applications encompassing different individual GE organisms, i.e. without an appropriate ERA prior to the release of GE plants into the environment.”

Experts call for agroecology, organic and regenerative agriculture to take centre stage at UN Food Systems Summit in New York.

WWF, Oxfam, IUCN and ECOWAS among 230 organisations to sign ambitious manifesto; 580 individual experts also sign on.

7 JULY, BRUSSELS – Over 800 international organisations, farming groups and food experts want agroecology, organic and regenerative agriculture to top the agenda at this year’s UN Food Systems Summit. The voices from six continents are calling on governments and businesses to take action once and for all on the “damaging” status quo in global farming.

An Israeli research team claims new software can detect unintended consequences of gene editing. Here, Dermot Martin unpacks the research that applies statistical modelling to determine and quantify editing activity. The new technology promises to identify and report unintended mutations that might currently go undetected during CRISPR Cas 9 gene editing of early stage human embryos.

London, 1 July (Lim Li Ching*) – Discussions on the assessment of new genetic technologies, such as synthetic biology and organisms containing engineered gene drives, at the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) have brought to light major differences.

Clear divisions emerged between Parties that grow and export genetically modified crops, such as Brazil and Argentina, and other Parties that tend to take more precautionary approaches to living modified organisms (LMOs) and new genetic technologies, such as those from Europe. Argentina is not a Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which is a Protocol to the CBD.

European retailers take a strong stand against deregulating new GMOs

New GMOs in Europe? Slow Food Europe podcast with our Policy Coordinator

Commission opens public consultation on the review of the seed legislation

In a 2018 Washington Post article, new GMO techniques were described in blushing terms: “the future of food” and “precise, fast and inexpensive.” While new techniques including gene-editing, gene-silencing and synthetic biology proliferate across industries, there are serious concerns about their precision and efficiency.

Read our recent blog post New GMOs and Where to Find Them

Before we look at what can go wrong, let us see what happens when gene-editing goes right. The most commonly used technique of the up-and-coming gene-editing lineup is undoubtedly CRISPR, which is relatively inexpensive and accessible (CRISPR kits are even available by mail order for the home geneticist).

EU Commission embraces new industry-led terminology

16 June 2021 / Testbiotech is today publishing a backgrounder showing how the EU Commission is trying to establish new official terminology which is set to cause ‘fundamental confusion’ in regulation. Experts with close affiliations to the biotech industry were the first to introduce the new term ‘conventional GMO’ to imply that the methods used in genetic engineering would have no inherent generic risks. This term was then embraced in an EU Commission report without any explanation or justification. A possible consequence could be wide ranging deregulation of genetically engineered organisms ‘through the backdoor’.

The new ‘industry-friendly’ term is used in a Commission report on new genomic techniques (New GE), published in April 2021. The term ‘conventional GMO’ appears throughout the text as well as in the glossary, and is used to mean ‘transgenic’. This gives the impression that genetic engineering is as safe as conventional breeding.

This new terminology is in clear contradiction to a European Court of Justice ruling and EU GMO regulation: the well-established legal meaning of ‘conventional’ lies in the application of traditional breeding methods based on the usage of genetic diversity and natural biological mechanisms. The resulting characteristics can also occur naturally and are considered to be safe. Conversely, genetic engineering techniques are associated with specific inherent risks and can result in genetic changes unlikely to occur in nature.

MEXICO CITY, June 10 (Reuters) - Mexico is holding up import permits for GMO corn, the head of the country's main farm lobby told Reuters, saying the government intended to apply a GMO ban to the grain used in animal feed despite contradictory comments by a top U.S. official.

In an interview, National Farm Council President Juan Cortina said among hundreds of agricultural product import permits awaiting a resolution are at least eight for genetically modified corn even though the ban is not set to go into effect for three years.

"They're not giving us extensions, there haven't been any administrative changes, they just don't respond," said Cortina, referring to delays of up to two years from the Health Ministry's sanitary protection agency, COFEPRIS, which is responsible for approving the permits.

Bioceres announced Canadian approval of its HB4 soy via a press release on June 1st. As of June 10, notice of approvals by Health Canada and the CFIA do not appear on the respective websites. This minimal information should be posted simultaneously with notification of approvals sent to product developers.

The company Bioceres is also interested in commercializing their HB4 technology in wheat. As you are aware, the commercialization of genetically engineered wheat is of great concern to many farmers, agri-food and civil society organizations, and members of the public. If government notification of approval decisions does not occur before or simultaneously with notification to product developers, it is possible that Canadian farmers and other members of the public could find out about a first Canadian approval of a genetically engineered wheat from a company such as Bioceres rather than from the government. Without information immediately available from the regulatory departments, there would be considerable confusion, mistrust and, potentially, market harm. This scenario highlights the need for reliable, timely public notifications.

In our view, providing notifications of regulatory decisions to product developers before notifying the public results in a lack of transparency and suggests that the departments consider this information to be less important for the public.