GENE EDITING MADE SIMPLE
There's a lot of confusion out there about what gene editing is and is not, fed by the efforts of pro-GMO lobbyists. For example, it's commonly claimed that gene editing doesn't involve the introduction of foreign DNA into the genome and that gene editing just makes changes that are similar to what could happen in nature. In a new briefing, Prof Michael Antoniou and Claire Robinson sort out the myths from the facts. The explain what gene editing is and how it differs from older-style GM and conventional breeding. To make it easier for people to find and access our information on gene editing, we've started to consolidate our most important resources in a new central hub that is linked to from the front page of our website, as viewed on a computer. It's called "GENE EDITING MYTHS, RISKS, & RESOURCES" â check it out at the link above. We'll be adding some of our core articles on gene editing over the coming days and weeks.
In an excellent video interview with Philippa Jamieson of Soil & Health NZ, the genetic engineer Prof Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, New Zealand explains in simple, non-technical language why new GM techniques should not be deregulated. Prof Heinemann said people are being manipulated by GMO industry language into accepting the deregulation of new GMOs. He implied that the argument that some new GMOs "could happen in nature" is a meaningless distraction because even if some new GMOs are conventional-like, this doesn't mean they don't pose risks â and it's no reason to deregulate them. Prof Heinemann said deregulation is in reality just a way of removing labelling and people's power to choose non-GMO. The Institute for Responsible Technology in the US has made an educational short video, "Seven reasons why gene editing is dangerous and unpredictable", targeted to policymakers of all global regions and others who want a short and simple explanation of the topic. ANSES's DEVASTATING OPINIONS ON RISKS OF NEW GMOs
An expert opinion on the risks of new GM plants from the French National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety (ANSES) was finally published after delays led to repeated accusations of censorship. Its devastating findings threaten to derail the attempts to weaken the regulations around new GM plants. In the newly published report, ANSES calls for new GM plants to be assessed for health and environmental risks on a case-by-case basis. It says it is "important" to set up a monitoring plan after each market launch, both for the environmental impact of these new GMOs and their socio-economic effects. The ANSES report's authors carried out around ten case studies (rice with reduced height, wheat with lower gluten content, herbicide-tolerant potato, grapevine resistant to grey rot, tomato with high amino acid content, etc.) and considered the possible risks that these NGT plants (plants produced by new genomic techniques, like CRISPR/Cas) pose to health and the environment. The group of scientists noted that "certain potential risks appear repeatedly in these case studies" and that "These include risks linked to unexpected changes in the composition of the plant, which could give rise to nutritional, allergenicity or toxicity problems, or medium- and long-term environmental risks, such as the risk of gene flow from edited plants to compatible wild or cultivated populations."
A report by France's food safety agency ANSES on plants derived from new GM techniques was blocked by President Macron's government under political pressure, writes Stéphane Foucart, science correspondent at Le Monde. He called this "one sign, among others, of the rift between the scientific community and the government". The report was the second one by ANSES on the EU proposals to deregulate new GMOs. ANSES's first report on the subject was devastating â it concluded that the deregulation proposals lacked any scientific basis. Foucart pointed out this was not the first time that those in power blocked the publication of an expert report â an act that constitutes a "breach of a democratic pact between scientific expertise on the one hand and those in power on the other". In 1997, Claude Allègre, then Minister of Research, tried to block publication of an expert report on asbestos by the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm). After news emerged that a scientific report on new GMOs by the French food safety agency ANSES was being withheld by the French government (see above), green groups cried âscandalâ and âdemocratic dysfunctionâ, reported a radio programme by RadioFrance. A member of ANSES's board of directors said it is âabnormal that a report written with public money should be impounded, on a subject so importantâ. Green groups wrote to the Ministry of Agriculture to officially request the release of the report. RadioFrance likened the French government's stance to the Mafia concept of "omertà " â a policy of keeping silent about crimes.
In a development that will challenge the mindset of those who believe the European Commission's GMO deregulation plans are based on science, the Commission announced it stands by its decision to treat crops produced with new GM techniques as conventionally bred ones â in spite of the expert reports from ANSES (see above) that point out that this stance is not based on science and that new GMOs pose risks that must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. It will not ask EU food safety authority EFSA to review its scientific assessment of the risks of new GMOs in light of ANSES's reports. In its determination to abolish risk assessment for most new GMOs, the Commission is even going against the advice of EFSA. EFSA had indeed asked for an assessment â albeit a relatively light one â of the risks of new GMOs, but the GMO industry objected and the Commission decided to go along with the industry. 7 FEBRUARY 2024: EU PARLIAMENT VOTE TO DEREGULATE NEW GMOs On 7 February the European Parliament adopted in a tight vote the Commissionâs proposal to widely deregulate the new generation of new GMOs. A majority of parliamentarians voted to remove new GMOs from safety checks and liability processes, putting health and nature at risk with the release of untested GM plants onto European dinner plates and into fields. But new GMOs will still be subject to labelling and traceability, thanks to a strong campaign supported by hundreds of thousands of citizens. GMWatch has published statements from various NGOs and the GMO-free industry group ENGA here, here, and here. Just like the EU Commission, the EU Parliament now also displays a clear disregard of science by endorsing the deregulation of new GM plants, says the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER). ENSSER adds that the Parliament thereby puts EU citizens and the environment at risk, in conflict with the Parliament's mandate to represent their interests. Citizens must now hope that the EU Council, which is still undecided, will stop this deregulation. Dr Ricarda Steinbrecher (biologist and molecular geneticist, board member of ENSSER) said: "New genomic techniques (NGTs) can achieve deep and far-reaching changes in a plant - radically altering biochemical pathways and composition. The processes cause further unintended changes. Risk assessments would ensure the safety of new GM plants and are essential to protect the environment, biodiversity and human health. Safety issues that were not identified in pre-market risk assessment can become apparent after commercialisation. Hence labelling and transparency are important." In spite of the 7 February vote (see above), there was once again no qualified majority of EU Member States in favour of a common position at a meeting of their permanent representatives (COREPER). This opens the possibility that the planned NGT regulation can no longer be passed before the European elections in June, writes the NGO Informationdienst Gentechnik in a detailed analysis of the situation (though GMWatch warns that there are reportedly attempts in motion to push through the regulation at warp speed in behind-closed-doors meetings). Informationdienst Gentechnik writes that in contrast to the Commission's proposal, Parliament included a labelling requirement for all genetically modified plants in the text of the regulation by 317 votes to 302 at the request of the Social Democrats and Greens. This means that not only must the seeds of Category 1 NGT plants (exempted from risk assessment) be labelled, but also the plants and any products containing or consisting of Category 1 NGT plants. "New genomic techniques" should then appear on the label. The fact that the COREPER did not reach any agreement on the new GMO deregulation proposal undermines the possibility of starting negotiations with Parliament and the Commission (so-called trilogue) before the European elections in June 2024, said farmer group European Coordination Via Campesina (ECVC). ECVC said it welcomes the opposition of EU Member States to this proposal, which doesn't hold up to scrutiny: "The Commissionâs refusal to authorise States to ban the cultivation of NGTs in their territories, and the open door to the privatisation of all seeds by patents, denounced by ECVC since the beginning of this process, are the main blocking points. This is a victory for peasantsâ organisations, which call on Member States to continue to defend the rights of farmers and consumers by opposing this unacceptable proposal." In its amendments adopted on 7 February 2024, the European Parliament drew a distinction between products derived from new genomic techniques, which it wanted to exclude from patentability, and the NGTs used to obtain these products, which could still be the subject of so-called process patents. But in addition to the legislative obstacles that this decision would create, particularly at the level of the European Patent Office, it would still leave farmers and small/medium-sized plant breeders at the mercy of infringement proceedings, contrary to what the Parliamentâs âreassuringâ proposal suggests. The European Commission's proposal for a new regulation on âplant reproductive materialâ is presented as a response to the demands of many farmers, small seed companies, consumers, and civil society. Their aim is to put an end to the drastic erosion of cultivated and food biodiversity resulting from the requirement for varieties to be uniform and stable. But Guy Kastler of the French peasant farmers' union Confederation Paysanne says abandoning the monopoly of these catalogue standards and plant variety rights does little to conceal the introduction of a new form of market control, provided by patented GM genes. The âplant reproductive materialâ proposal will also impose obligations on those exchanging seed to produce it in artificial pathogen-free conditions â an attempt to chemically and genetically control the collapse of the health of âimprovedâ and GM industrial plants. JANUARY 2024: ENVI COMMITTEE VOTE TO DEREGULATE NEW GMOs In January, members of the Environment Committee (ENVI) of the European Parliament voted to remove GMOs produced with ânew genomic techniquesâ or NGT from safety checks, labelling requirements and liability processes, Friends of the Earth EU reports. The voteâs outcome shows EU conservative and most liberal parliamentariansâ disregard for the right of consumers and farmers to know what they eat and grow in their fields. It also raises the alarm about the undue influence of big agribusinesses like Bayer, which spends 6 million euros lobbying per year seeking to expand their control over the food sector. Mute Schimpf of Friends of the Earth Europe called the vote "a slap in the face for farmers and consumers. The Environment Committeeâs position carelessly ignores basic citizensâ rights and nature protection principles to bow to industry lobbies, but there is still time to act. We urge all EU parliamentarians to put the final nail in the coffin of this absurd deregulation proposal in the plenary vote." The Committeeâs vote was covered by the Washington Post and Euractiv. The European Commission proposal on new GMOs and amendments supported by the European Parliamentâs environment committee risk violating the rights of farmers and consumers, according to a legal analysis by Greenpeace. The proposed law does not provide sufficient protection against the contamination of crops with new GMOs, which are obtained through new genomic techniques (NGTs). Greenpeace EU GMO campaigner Eva Corral said: âDecades of progress in the EU on farmersâ rights, and protecting peopleâs health and the environment, should not be scrapped for the sake of biotech industry profits. Safety measures do not hinder innovation, nor do current rules that apply to GMOs. EU law does not prohibit research and development: it aims to ensure that what is developed does not breach EU citizensâ rights to health and environmental protection.â The vote in the EP Environment Committee on the deregulation of new GMOs (NGTs) is the next betrayal of the EU Green Deal in the European Parliament, after the SUR debacle (pesticide reduction) and Nature Restoration Law (NRL), Corporate Europe Observatory says. Too many MEPs have shamefully fallen for the years long corporate lobby campaign. Rapporteur Jessica Polfjard introduced an unvalidated, even more radical deregulation approach based on the advice of a single professor. The non-GMO industry association ENGA said that the vote marked "a bleak day, both for citizensâ right to know what is in the food they are eating and for the food industry: "The draft law, should it be approved after trilogue between Council, Commission and Parliament, will mean that there will be no transparency and labelling of new GMOs... in feed and food." PUSHBACK FROM EU COMMITTEE The NAT Commission for Natural Resources in the Committee of the Regions â an advisory body representing the interests of regional and local authorities in the EU â has adopted a highly critical draft report on new GMOs/NGTs. The rapporteur in charge, Erik Konczer, has made a video talking about it. He says, "New genomic techniques (NGTs) are GMO with almost no regulation. And there are no data on the impact of NGTs on biodiversity, health, or environment. What's at stake? Your choice. Your freedom of choice if you are a consumer, a farmer or a territory. We need traceability. Therefore, we need labelling from farm to fork. And therefore we need to get the right for regions and countries to say, 'I don't want NGTs in my territory'... We need time to regulate. The future of our agriculture is at stake." Download the draft report here. SCIENCE ON NEW GMOs The Environment Agency of Austria has co-published a study that analyses the potential risks of products of new genomic techniques (NGT). Like older-style genetic engineering methods, NGTs are also based on biological processes that cannot guarantee precision. A wide range of unintended genetic changes are possible; these include smaller or larger genetic changes adjacent to the target sequence, i.e. unintended âon-targetâ mutations. Unintended effects are also caused by the fact that the intended genetic changes will often not only result in the expression of a specific desired characteristic, but will simultaneously affect other functions or traits in the modified cells or organisms. The study stresses the urgent need for a robust risk assessment of all NGT plants. The assessment also needs to address off-target modifications and other unintended genetic changes, which remain in the final NGT product and might result in adverse effects. The study itself is here. A new study, which has appeared as a preprint, highlights the environmental risks associated with the use of new genetic engineering techniques (NGTs) in oilseed crops, such as rapeseed and camelina. These plants are not harmless in the environment. A frequently pursued goal is a change in the composition of the oil. However, both increasing and decreasing the polyunsaturated fatty acid content can have negative effects on pollinators feeding on the pollen of the NGT plants. A review of the data in current publications shows that the cultivation of plants obtained from new GM techniques can be used to drastically alter the species-specific characteristics of poplar trees. No additional genes need to be inserted and the trees do not have to produce new or altered proteins. Poplar trees only begin to flower in nature after seven to ten years, but in experiments, after gene scissors-based interventions, they flowered after just four months. Only minor changes in the regulatory genes were necessary to achieve such results. DETECTION OF NEW GMOs
The EU has allocated a total of â¬11m to two research projects on detection methods for new GMOs (products of ânew genomic techniquesâ or NGTs). The move comes after a longstanding refusal by the European Commission to fund such research and at a time when the EU institutions are engaged in a deregulation process to weaken the safeguards around new GMOs. The first project, DARWIN, is led by NORCE (Norwegian Research Centre) and has received funding of â¬5m. The Non-GMO industry association VLOG is also involved. The second project, DETECTIVE, is led by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) and has received funding of â¬6m. Also involved are the GMO industry lobby group Euroseeds, along with various organisations with a history of GMO industry-friendly views and activities, such as the EU Joint Research Centre and Wageningen University. NEW GMOs LOBBYWATCH
The ecomodernist lobby group WePlanet (formerly RePlanet) has been promoting an open letter it organised that has been signed by â35 Nobel Laureates and over 1,000 scientistsâ calling on MEPs to push through the deregulation of new GMOs. Molecular geneticist and expert in genetic engineering technologies Prof Michael Antoniou sent an emailed response to an EU media outlet that ran an article on the letter, but it was not published. Now GMWatch has published a slightly shortened version. In his response to the Laureates' letter, which he calls âdevoid of scientific substanceâ and âinsultingâ, he says âgrave concernsâ about the deregulation proposals are fully justified and not remotely âanti-scienceâ. Here we go again... Whenever the world faces a food or environmental crisis, GM comes to the rescue. At least, this is what those who advocate the unrestricted use of these technologies in agriculture would have us believe, says Prof Michael Antoniou. In a response to the Nobel laureates' lobby letter, Prof Antoniou writes in the EU Reporter: "First came 'transgenic' commodity GM foods and crops (mostly soybeans and maize), introduced in 1996 â which, however, failed to deliver on their promises... But... weâre told that the new generation of GM crops (and animals) produced using so called 'new genomic techniques' (NGTs) are different and will succeed where transgenics failed... At this point, those of us who have been involved in the public debate on GM foods since its early days in the mid-1990s will be having a déjà vu experience. The use of transgenic techniques in GM crop development was presented as being precise and as a natural extension of traditional breeding... Have things really changed with the arrival of NGTs? If we look closely and deeply into NGT methods, there is sound scientific reason to doubt the recent hype surrounding the claims of precision, safety, and cure-all powers for this development." In the wake of the Nobel laureates' letter, Prof Michael Antoniou explained in an interview with the New Indian Express why it is scientifically unjustified to deregulate these techniques. He advised India to follow the science and not repeat the mistakes made by the EU in ignoring the health and environmental risks of NGTs. He said, "There is little difference in the end between NGTs and transgenic techniques; both use the same genetic modification processes (plant tissue culture, plant cell genetic transformation), which invariably result in genome-wide, large scale unintended mutations. The outcome from the application of NGTs is far from predictable and thus a comprehensive, in depth safety evaluation is required before marketing." He also explained why new GMOs won't solve hunger and why claims that they will are propaganda. Ami des Lobbies and POLLINIS have made an educational and funny satirical video on "new GMOs" deregulation. It's in French but is now available with subtitles in English, Spanish and Italian. NEW GMO REGULATION AND DEREGULATION AROUND THE WORLD
The South African Minister of Agriculture Ms Thoko Didiza has upheld the October 2021 decision of the Executive Council (EC) that the risk assessment framework existing for GMOs will also apply to new GM techniques. In a double blow, the Ministerâs decision rejects the challenge by a powerful consortium of agricultural industry actors, under the aegis of the Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa (AGBIZ), which comprises the South African National Seed Organisation (SANSOR) and CropLife, against the decision of the EC in terms of section 19 of the GMO Act, in November 2021. It also rejects the findings of an Appeal Board, whose membership is secret â constituted by the Minister in terms of the GMO Act â which found in favour of the flimsy and tenuous arguments of the industry. This is particularly significant because South Africa has long been the industry beachhead for pushing GMOs onto the rest of Africa. In May 2022, Health Canada announced that it will exempt from the ânovel foodâ regulations those GM plants produced through gene editing techniques that do not involve the integration of genes from different species. This means that there will be no government safety assessments for these new GMOs. In May 2023 the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced a similar decision for gene-edited seeds. The government has also given away its authority to request information from the product developers about these GM foods and seeds. This means that the regulators cannot ask to see any corporate safety data, or even basic information about how a product was genetically engineered. In fact, the government may not even know about the existence of some of these gene-edited products on the market. The industry is invited to voluntarily disclose new, unregulated products coming to market. Media investigations in 2022 and 2023 uncovered a trail of documents showing that federal government departments worked directly with the biotechnology industry to design the new regulatory guidance for gene-edited GMOs, in a committee they called the âTiger Teamâ. COMMERCIALISED (AND DISCONTINUED) NEW GMOs Food tech startup Pairwise has decided to discontinue marketing its first CRISPR gene-edited product â mustard greens genetically engineered "to remove the off-putting bitter flavour commonly associated with members of the brassica family", according to an article in Food Navigator USA. Pairwise CEO Tom Adams said the company "did not have the resources to effectively market the salad its and continue developoing gene-edited products". He said Pairwise was looking for "the right partner to take that product forward". In GMWatch's view, the whole point of mustard greens is that their bitterness "cuts" the flavour of the other foods they are served with, as well as providing health benefits. For other gene-edited food flops, see this, this, and this.
The first CRISPR tomatoes are now on the shelves in Japan, reports Testbiotech. The "GABA tomato" was developed with new genetic engineering techniques (NGTs). This is shown by photo just recently taken in a supermarket in the Tokyo region. According to the information on the packages, the tomatoes will lower blood pressure, relieve mental stress and improve sleep quality. Experts are doubting that the consumption of the fruits goes along with such effects. At the same time, according to the Japanese functional food register, the consumption of the tomatoes is not recommended for pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers and small children. Tomatoes like this could soon be available in supermarkets in Europe as well, without detailed risk assessment and labelling. UK NEW GMO DEREGULATION The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has published the final report on its public consultation on the sale of genetically modified "precision bred" food and animal feed in England. The consultation sought public views on plans to remove labelling and traceability from these types of GMOs. Although it was a technically complex consultation, it still received 412 responses. In its report, the FSA is openly disdainful of citizen ("consumer") views and fails to live up to its mandate to protect the public interest. In summing up the responses, the FSA has chosen to weaponise citizensâ opposition to the Genetic Technology Act. It notes, correctly, that many citizens and civil society groups oppose the aims of the Act. The implication throughout is that this prejudices and therefore invalidates their responses. But it has not taken the same view on the pro-GM civil society groups and businesses that supported its proposals. Indeed, although the FSA report says it treated all responses equally, it is the minority view of these groups that underpins the FSAâs decision to push ahead with its deregulatory agenda. NEW RESOURCE FOR HUNGARIAN SPEAKERS Make sure all your Hungarian friends and contacts know about this new publication: New GMOs, Greenwashing â Myths and Facts. Hungary continues to be a real GMO-free leader! .................................................................. 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! |
