Review 571 – New GMOs

The EU looks to be off the hook, for the moment at least, from the threat of new GMOs – gene-edited crops and foods – ending up in fields and on plates without any safety checking, traceability, or labelling. That’s because the countries forcefully driving the deregulation of new GMOs (or “NGTs” as the Eurocrats have decided to call them) have failed in their drive to convince sufficient member states that they have got the legislation right – see below.

But the UK is still very much on the hook and British citizens' pre-election window of opportunity to change the disastrous GMO deregulation bill – the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill – passed by the current Conservative government, is closing fast. So if you can vote in the UK, please take action now – see our first item below – and write to your future MP as if your consumer rights depend on it, because they do! The next government will have the power to ensure transparency and, crucially, labelling for so-called “precision-bred” (i.e. gene-edited – a process that is very far from precise!) GMOs. The time to demand this is now. Follow the link below to take action. It's easy and quick to do – and it's really important.

UK Action Alert: “Precision bred” GMOs must be labelled and traceable

Right now – and for a very short time – we have a rare window of opportunity to put the issue of genetically engineered food in the UK food system in front of would-be MPs and demand that they take action. The UK’s GMO campaign groups, including GMWatch, have come together to make it simpler for citizens to write to all their candidates in one go and urge them to commit to ensuring that forthcoming regulations for the Act include provisions for mandatory labelling, greater regulatory transparency and ongoing – and meaningful – public engagement on an issue of deep public concern. An encouraging number of people have taken action already, but we need more to maximise the impact. Take action now!

UK: Will we be able to keep GMOs – including the new “PBOs” – off our plates?

In 2023, the current Conservative Government passed the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act, which created an entirely new and fictitious class of genetically modified organisms – the “precision bred organism“ or “PBO”, writes the well-known investigative food journalist and author Joanna Blythman. She says: “This sneaky, undemocratic attempt to force genetically modified organisms (GMOs) onto our plates – unlabelled – has been launched by our government, working hand-in-hand with the biotech industry, research establishment and pro-GMO ‘think tanks’. It represents the most serious threat to non-GMO, organic and traditional food and farming in my lifetime. It is an attack on our right to eat time-honoured ingredients in their natural forms. If successful, it will jeopardise our future ability to defend and protect authentic small-scale food culture.”

Scotland: SNP’s stance on gene editing would stay the same if the EU changed

If the European Union chooses to invest in gene-edited crops, the Scottish government would not follow suit, according to First Minister John Swinney. The SNP leader confirmed the party’s opinion on the issue during his visit to the Royal Highland Show alongside minister for agriculture Jim Fairlie. “The SNP’s stance is not to pursue GE [gene editing]. Even if they wish to in Europe, it is not in our interest.” Swinney explained. “Here in Scotland we produce a high quality of produce and I would not like to take away from that.” Swinney is instead wishing to focus on supporting farmers in the rise of labour shortages and funding issues.

GM foods must be clearly labelled

While Scotland still bans GM products in food and drink, the UK Internal Market Act means there is nothing to stop precision-bred English foods and animal feeds from making their way into our food chain – and the English law puts no labelling requirements on precision-bred products. This raises serious problems in several areas, writes Ruth Watson, founder of the “Keep Scotland the Brand” campaign: “If precision-bred food is not labelled, it can’t be avoided. Consumer protection, consumer choice and consumer confidence in the food we eat is of significant importance, both at home and in our important export markets. Organic farmers and producers of organic food and drink cannot use GMOs and keep their credentials, so clear labelling is a vital requirement for the future of Scotland’s organic sector.” Watson added, “It would not be an understatement to say the devolved nations have been treated with a dismissiveness which could be interpreted as rank contempt by the UK Government as the English legislation made its way through the Westminster Parliament.” She recommends that people write to their prospective MPs to express their concerns.

EU: Welcome news – deadlock on new GMO deregulation persists

GMWatch welcomes the news that a discussion on a final proposal by the Belgian Council Presidency to resolve deadlock on new genomic techniques (NGTs, new GMOs) legislation was removed from the 26 June EU ambassadors’ meeting agenda as it failed to convince some member states, notably Poland. The decision came after EU governments could not reach the necessary majority to adopt a common position on NGT rules, sources from the Belgian Presidency said. Poland’s Agriculture Minister Czeslaw Siekierski announced a day earlier the country was unlikely to support the law despite efforts from the Belgian Presidency to address concerns over the patentability on NGT crops. “We did not have enough time to analyse the impact of this proposal,” Siekierski told journalists at a meeting of agriculture ministers. Securing Warsaw’s support would have been enough to break the stalemate and move forward with the proposal. The draft legislation is likely to be stalled at the Council for at least a year, as the Hungarian and Polish presidencies are expected to make little progress on the file. GMWatch comments that this means a much-needed pause in the rush to remove safety checks, traceability and labelling from the products of new GM techniques that are anything but safe.

Retailers, raise your voice for strict legislation on new GMOs: Sign joint European letter

Is your company active in organic food, for example, as a retailer, processor, or food brand? Does your company want to remain GMO-free? Is freedom of choice and high transparency towards consumers and EU citizens important to you? Raise your voice by supporting a joint letter by organic and conventional food company representatives. The letter has 190 signatures so far, but more voices are louder.

Peasant farmers’ organisation responds to GM rice crop trashing in Italy

On 21 June a hugely controversial field trial of GM CRISPR gene-edited rice in Pavia, Italy, was destroyed by unknown activists. The researchers who developed the GM rice issued a press release about the incident, calling the activists “ecoterrorists” and complaining of “violence” (there was none), “obscurantism”, and “anti-scientific impulses”. Lobbyists for the big seed producers echoed their complaints, labelling the activists “barbarians”. The Italian Rural Association (ARI), part of the peasant farmers' organisation Via Campesina, opposed the planting of the GM rice trial but also condemned the crop trashing action as counterproductive to their aim of keeping Italy GMO-free. Moreover, Antonio Onorati, board member of ARI, said the group had visited the trial while it was still intact and found numerous violations of the rules for field tests. There were holes in the fence surrounding the trial, meaning there was no capacity to block animals; the distance from the nearest non-experimental rice crop was 0 metres and not 50 metres, as required; and signs to indicate cultivation were placed in such a way as to be illegible from the public road. Onorati added that the trial was pushed through without proper democratic debate or transparency. Read Testbiotech’s critique of the rice trial here.

Bayer set to push “new GMO” salad greens into US grocery stores

Bayer is set to push “new GMO” salad greens into US grocery stores this fall. They were first introduced on a limited basis by Pairwise, which quickly backed off. But Bayer, which is in a strategic alliance with Pairwise, has now licensed the gene-edited greens. No risk assessment was carried out even though the process of genetic engineering 17 genes in the mustard greens resulted in unexpected genetic changes, as well as transgenic gene segments being unintentionally inserted into the plant genome. USDA deregulated the GMO mustard greens without investigating either possible health effects or environmental risks in any detail. The genetic engineering of a milder taste also leads to a reduction in those compounds which are especially relevant for positive health effects.

New GMOs, same risks: EU Ministers urged to apply scrutiny, not shortcuts

Both the French and German national environmental and health agencies have published reports that call into question the EU Commission’s conclusion that most new GMOs would not cause more risks for the health and the environment than any conventionally bred plants. This assumption formed the basis of the Commission’s wide deregulation proposal, which aims to exclude new GMOs from the current EU GMO labelling requirements, safety checks, and traceability processes. Mute Schimpf, food campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe said: “The recent reports leave no room for doubt – new GMOs, same old risks. It’s time to put an end to the absurd fantasy that they require shortcuts instead of scrutiny. We urge ministers to prioritise the best interests of farmers, consumers, and nature, not those of the agribusiness.” Both national authorities recommend case-by-case safety checks concerning potential health and environmental risks. It stands in contrast to the EU Council of agriculture ministers’ proposal to allow the unlimited marketing and cultivation of new GMOs without any safety checks at all.

New GMOs: EU Commission and EFSA assessments are wrong

A recently published study shows that the use of CRISPR/Cas “gene scissors” causes unintended genetic changes that are different to random mutations. According to the study, 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 (NGTs). According to the EU Commission and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), unintentional genetic changes resulting from the use of CRISPR/Cas “gene scissors” are no different to random mutations. However, a new study shows that this assumption is wrong and that the location and frequency of the unintended genetic changes cannot be equated to the occurrence of random mutations.

New GM plants: EFSA overlooked most powerful and risky applications

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has overlooked extremely powerful and risky applications of new genetic engineering (NGTs) on plants, writes Testbiotech. This is particularly worrying as EFSA is responsible for correctly informing the EU institutions about the risks associated with NGT plants. If their reports are not correct or misguiding, it can have consequences for legislation and the future safety of health and the environment. Several publications show that CRISPR/Cas gene scissors are a highly effective tool for knocking out genes coding for so-called micro-RNAs (miRNA). The miRNA molecules regulate various complex functions with regard to growth, development and stress responses. Just a few changes in the genes producing miRNAs can cause profound in-depth changes in plant metabolism, involving regulatory networks of hundreds of genes. Nevertheless, EFSA has failed to consider any of these applications in its opinions on NGT plants.

CRISPR patents block conventional plant breeding

No Patents on Seeds! conducted research into international patent applications published in 2023. The outcome shows how new genetic engineering (NGT) is being abused to extend patent protection to conventionally bred plants. Gene variants and traits found in existing plant populations are being “re-invented” with NGTs to create the impression of a technical invention. If these patents are granted, they often extend to conventional breeding. Patents on plant varieties and breeding are prohibited in Europe, with the only exception being GM plants. The EU should take initiative to correct the interpretation of patent law, said Christoph Then of No Patents on Seeds! To “re-invent" the plants, traits found in existing plant populations are reproduced by using tools like the gene scissors CRISPR/Cas. Also, random mutagenesis is used to create the same or similar gene variants. From a plant breeders’ perspective, in most cases, these processes are not necessary to derive the desired traits. Only for companies that want a patent do these processes make sense: They can claim the plants as their “fake” invention. “Some companies are apparently filing these patents to try and push conventional breeders into new dependencies or even out of the market. If granted, the patent holders can control access to plants, regardless of whether genetic engineering is used or not,” warned Christoph Then.

Potential applications of new GMOs present multitude of risks of harm

For a new review, scientists conducted a horizon scanning of potential environmental applications in four groups of organisms produced by genetic modification, including the use of new genomic techniques: terrestrial animals (excluding insects and applications with gene drives), fish, algae and microorganisms. In all four groups, the researchers identified a broad range of potential applications in stages of basic as well as advanced research, and a limited number of applications which are on, or ready to be placed on, the market. The study concludes, “From a risk assessor’s perspective, these potential applications entail a multitude of possible pathways to harm. The current limited level of experience and limited amount of available scientific information could constitute a significant challenge in the near future, for which risk assessors and competent authorities urgently need to prepare.”

New GMOs deregulation would threaten EU farming resilience, local and regional leaders warn

In a published opinion, the European Committee of the Regions (CoR) has warned of serious risks for the future of European agriculture if the European Commission's proposal to deregulate new GMOs/NGTs passes into law. The opinion says that EU regions and cities regard the non-patentability of natural plants and genes – and thus guaranteed access to all genetic resources for varietal innovation purposes – as an essential pillar of any proposal to regulate NGTs. The opinion also calls for better traceability and labelling of NGTs in order to ensure that consumers have freedom of choice and to protect farmers in the event of accidental contamination of their crops by patented seeds. In the opinion, local and regional leaders warn that the current NGT proposal will exacerbate market concentration in the seed sector, lower seed genetic diversity and reduce the availability of organic seed. They therefore call for the organic sector to be supported so that it can coexist with the new GMO crops without additional burdens or costs.

Can GM crops promise food security?

Many scientists and environmental campaigners don’t agree that GM crops can promise food security or help fight the climate change-induced extreme droughts and floods that are decimating agriculture. New GMOs will continue to perpetuate an “agro-industrial system” that “bears substantial responsibility for the climate crisis”, Anneleen Kenis, lecturer in political ecology and environmental justice at Brunel University, London, said. Kenis’s research argues that GMOs often involve “large-scale monocultures” of limited crop varieties that also require great amounts of artificial fertilisers, pesticides and irrigation.

..................................................................

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!