| Unmasking new GMOs - protecting farmers and consumers' right to transparency Foodwatch International and Friends of the Earth Europe have published a new briefing, "Unmasking new GMOs - protecting farmers and consumers' right to transparency". As the European Commission gets ready to unveil its new proposal to deregulate the new generation of GMOs made with so-called new genomic techniques (NGTs), the debate is heating up. So far discussions mainly focus on how risky or safe new GMOs are, or could be. However, the issue that is at least as important for farmers, food processors, food retailers and consumers, is how new GMOs will be labelled. Studies show that as long as consumers have the information whether their food contains GMOs or not, they prefer conventional, organic or GMO-free options. This means that if there is not a demand for GMO products, many farmers would not buy new GM seeds, limiting the European market and global pesticide corporations’ sales of these products. Labelling is essential to ensure the rights of farmers, food producers, retailers and consumers to decide what they grow in their fields, use in their products, sell in their supermarkets and choose to eat. We all have a right to choose GMO-free options. Foodwatch International and Friends of the Earth Europe are calling on European Commissioners to veto the new legislative proposal and keep new GMOs strictly regulated and labelled as GMOs, in the best interests of farmers and consumers and the environment. Foodwatch International and Friends of the Earth Europe Glyphosate exposure linked with diabetes Glyphosate exposure is linked to an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, a new study shows. The study found that glyphosate exposure has a harmful effect on signalling pathways, which in turn causes the skeletal muscle to become insulin resistant and eventually develop type 2 diabetes mellitus. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules Beyond seeds and genetics: Assessment of the social impacts of GM crops in Africa under a critical lens – register for workshop GM crops are at the centre of efforts to achieve important social goals in Africa, notably improved food security and poverty alleviation. Recent research, however, has identified a disjuncture between the lofty goals of GM crop programmes in Africa and the approaches used to assess their impacts. These findings come as calls for funding and attention to improve impact evaluation and assessment in agricultural development are growing. This day-long workshop gathers experts in the evaluative sciences, biotechnology development for Africa, and innovation studies to identify the socio-economic assessment gaps of African GM crop interventions, and suggests ways to adopt more appropriate assessment approaches in line with their broad social goals. In-person and virtual. Registration required. June 7, 2023, 9:00-16:30 (France time zone, CEST)). [GMW: This workshop has a great lineup of expert speakers, including Dr Brian Dowd-Uribe, Dr Klara Fischer, Dr Dominic Glover, and Dr Joeva Rock.] Montpellier Advanced Knowledge Institute on Transitions First UK babies born after “three-person IVF”: Why all the secrecy? The Guardian reports that “a small number of babies” with DNA from three people have been born in the UK. The exact number has not been disclosed; it is less than five but more than one. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the government agency that regulates the process, revealed this in response to a freedom of information request, and noted in a terse statement that “32 patients have been given approval for mitochondrial donation treatment". This technology is controversial not only because of its significant safety issues but also because it is a cellular engineering process that is heritable through the maternal line. These techniques do not treat any existing person for a disease, illness, or condition, and safer options for creating families are available. The secretive way in which this controversial research has been conducted raises disturbing issues. After all, the experiments involve actual pregnancies and babies. There have as yet been no peer-reviewed scientific publications. The HFEA attributes the lack of public information to the need to respect the privacy of the patients involved. But how would describing the results in scientific terms encroach on their privacy? There are many significant unanswered questions. Center for Genetics and Society 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! __________________________________________________________ Website: http://www.gmwatch.org
Profiles: http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/GM_Watch:_Portal
Twitter: http://twitter.com/GMWatch
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/GMWatch/276951472985?ref=nf |
