| | 10/September/24
| | Conflicts of interest taint the independence of EFSA In July, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) appointed new experts for the GMO Panel, which is responsible for the assessment of GMOs. Research by Testbiotech has found that the panel now includes a large number of researchers involved in the development of genetically engineered plants, some of whom have links to industry, and are actively lobbying for the deregulation of new GM techniques (NGT). The panel is responsible for the risk assessment of genetically engineered plants and for developing risk assessment guidelines. The research shows that almost half of the 16 panel members are involved in the development of transgenic or NGT plants. In a number of cases, there were or are collaborations with industry, such as Syngenta and Corteva. Five experts on the panel have also applied for patents on transgenic or NGT plants, often together with companies. The chair of the GMO Panel even advises industry on EFSA risk assessment. The findings show that EFSA's independence from industry has not improved since earlier research was done by Corporate Europe Observatory on the EFSA GMO Panel members from 2012 onwards. UK GMO regulatory committees are also stuffed full of GMO developers and other industry-linked people. GMWatch New Zealand: Soil & Health against redefining gene tech in food standards Joining the call for caution when it comes to gene technology, the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand has officially submitted its response to Food Standards Australia New Zealand, rejecting Proposal P1055. The proposal seeks to change the definition of genetic engineering technologies used in food production, to accommodate new technologies and regulate foods according to the risk they pose [GMW: actually to weaken the risk assessment based on evidence-free assumptions about safety]. The association also urges Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to extend the consultation period by at least a month to allow for sufficient time to make submissions. “Redefining gene technology to exclude new breeding techniques (like gene editing) without proper labels and safety checks threatens our ability to choose what we eat. We stand for transparency and informed choices in food consumption, not ambiguity,” Charles Hyland, soil scientist and co-chair of the Soil & Health Association, said. Farmers Weekly Nigeria's government agencies disagree over GMO safety Last week in Nigeria, two government agencies openly disagreed on the usefulness, or otherwise, of agricultural GMOs. The National Agency for Food and Drug Administration Control, NAFDAC, and the National Biotechnology Agency fought openly. Prof Moji Adeyeye, director general of NAFDAC, criticised GMOs, saying there were concerns over their suitability in Nigeria. She also raised doubts over whether rigorous scientific and laboratory tests had been undertaken to ascertain safety risks and implications for human health. However, the director general of the Nigeria Biotechnology Management Agency (NBMA), Dr Agnes Asagbra, wrote in a letter that the comments of the NAFDAC boss undermined the mandate and functions of the NBMA. “The views you expressed appear to discredit the hard work and integrity of the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) and its several renowned stakeholders and experts for which your Agency is one,” the letter said. Hallmark News We hope you’ve found this newsletter interesting. 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 |
|
