| | 10/July/24
| | EU’s food watchdog EFSA dismisses concerns over gene-edited crops proposal amid Council deadlock While the European Parliament reached its position on gene-edited plants in February, the file has been stuck at the Council since December. The EU’s food safety authority (EFSA) said that the Commission’s criteria to relax rules on certain gene-edited foods are "scientifically justified", while the Hungarian Council Presidency is pulling the brakes on the file. Following a request of the European Parliament, EFSA published an assessment of a 2023 opinion by the French food safety agency (ANSES) that questioned the Commission’s criteria to split crops produced using new genomic techniques (NGTs, new GMOs) into two categories, one of the founding elements in the proposal. Under the Commission’s proposal, plants falling under the NGT1 category would be exempt from the EU’s requirements on GMOs, including mandatory labelling and an authorisation process. Those with more far-reaching DNA modifications, labelled as NGT2, would continue to follow GMO regulations. ANSES raised concerns on this point, saying that the criteria used to consider NGT 1 crops as equivalent to their conventional counterparts had “no scientific basis”. EFSA, however, concluded that the Commission’s standards – largely based on the number of genetic modifications in the crop – are “scientifically justified”. Euractiv GMWatch comment: EFSA's claim that new GMOs are as safe as conventional plants is no surprise EFSA's opinion, while no surprise to GMWatch, is a masterpiece of biased evidence selection, contradictory statements, and circular reasoning. The agency follows the Commission's decision to focus on the size and number of intended mutations in a new GM crop. However, GMWatch and ANSES have pointed out that it's not just the size or number of the modifications that is important, but what they do – their functional consequences. Knowing the size and number of intended mutations tells you nothing about this (such functional consequences could mean impaired growth in the field, or the presence of unexpected toxins or allergens). EFSA briefly agrees with ANSES's comment, but then says this is also the case with conventional plants, so they see no extra risk from new GM plants. EFSA completely ignores scientific papers showing that the kinds of mutations that new GM techniques can create are different from those arising from conventional breeding and even mutagenesis breeding – and can present very different risks. EFSA also ignores the issue of scale – that new GM techniques can vastly speed up – and roll out on a far wider scale – certain mutations, compared with what could happen naturally or through breeding. GMWatch's more detailed analysis of EFSA's opinion will follow soon. GMWatch comment: no link in header New evidence shows unintended changes from gene editing are different from random mutations A new study shows that the use of CRISPR/Cas ‘gene scissors’ causes unintended genetic changes that are different from random mutations. Major structural changes in chromosomes occur much more frequently in the genomic regions targeted by the ‘gene scissors’ than would otherwise be the case. These results also have implications for the risk assessment of plants obtained from new genetic engineering techniques (NGTs). According to the EU Commission and the European Food Safety Authority, unintentional genetic changes resulting from the use of CRISPR/Cas are no different from random mutations. However, the new method of data evaluation used in this study shows that this assumption is wrong. GMWatch 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 |
|
