Lobbyists seeking to minimise regulation of gene editing technologies like CRISPR claim it can be used safely because of its incredible precision. But the famous American geneticist and molecular engineer George Church says that, contrary to all the hype, CRISPR is far from precise, calling it a "blunt ax" and saying, "It's called editing, I think it's really genome vandalism". 

Below you can find a series of briefings, reports, podcasts, and other resources, that cut through the hype, explaining gene editing in simple straighforward terms and showing that the process as a whole is far from precise, predictable and safe. They also expose other misleading claims, such as it's not involving foreign DNA, or it's merely creating changes like those in nature, or those resulting from traditional plant and animal breeding. It is bogus claims like these that are being used by some governments to justify not requiring products of gene editing to undergo safety assessments or be labelled as genetically modified, even though such products have no history of safe use. 

What is gene editing and how is it different from older-style GM and conventional breeding?
In this briefing, Prof Michael Antoniou and GMWatch's Claire Robinson show that gene editing is different from natural breeding in ways that mean its products (plants and animals) pose risks to health and the environment that need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis in a robust regulatory regime. 

New GMOs: Sorting spin from facts – media briefing
In this short, simple, and clear briefing, Greenpeace debunks five of the main misleading claims used by the biotech industry and politicians who want the EU to deregulate new GMOs. It draws on the warnings of the French National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES), the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), and the Austrian Environment Agency (UBA), as well as the rulings of the European Court of Justice.

Let’s cut the crap on gene technology
Prof Jack Heinemann deconstructs some of the myths and spin about gene editing, including the false notion that it is lower risk than other forms of genetic engineering and therefore can be exempted from biosafety regulations.

The language of gene editing is highly misleading
Metaphors like gene editing, which suggest precision, actually hide messy cellular dynamics. They also fail to convey the sense of risk or the need for caution that is required with tools as powerful and imprecise as CRISPR. In this extract from his book, The Mutant Project, the scholar Eben Kirksey says an armed drone attack gives a more accurate comparison than the cutting and pasting of text on a computer. That's because CRISPR can persist in cells for weeks, bouncing around the chromosomes, producing damage to DNA over and over again, every time it finds a near match to the intended target.

Gene editing myths and reality: A guide through the smokescreen
A detailed report written by GMWatch's Claire Robinson and published by the Greens/EFA in the European Parliament, deconstructing the myths about gene editing that are promoted by the pro-GMO lobby.

Science supports need to subject gene-edited plants and animals to strict safety assessments
GMWatch's annotated collection of peer-reviewed scientific papers explaining what can go wrong with gene editing and why gene-edited products must be robustly regulated, in order to protect health and the environment.

Gene editing: Unexpected outcomes and risks
An abbreviated version of our resource (above), "Science supports need to subject gene-edited plants and animals to strict safety assessments", for those who want a shorter document with less detailed explanation.

On-target effects of genome editing techniques: (Un)repaired DNA damage, a hindrance to safety and development?
This report by GeneWatch UK shows that claims of safety and efficacy of gene editing often hinge on their "precision" in targeting DNA sequences of interest, while ignoring unintended DNA damage not only at "off-target" sites of the genome (those not targeted by the intended genetic modification), but also at "on-target" sites (at the intended edit site).

Behind the smokescreen: Vested interests of EU scientists lobbying for GMO deregulation
This report, written by GMWatch's Claire Robinson and published by the Greens/EFA in the European Parliament, looks at the vested interests of those lobbying for the removal of regulatory safeguards around new GMOs in the EU. Alongside the seed industry, three scientist organisations also lobbied for legislative change. What are these groups? Why would they promote a weakening of the EU's GMO legislation? This report answers these questions by investigating the members of these groups and the national organisations with which they are affiliated. It shows that many have material interests in the commercial use of GM technology in agriculture.

PODCASTS

Prof Michael Antoniou on GMO myths and truths and why deregulation is not the way ahead

Prof Jack Heinemann on why we should not deregulate GMOs

Prof Jack Heinemann on GMO deregulation and media smothering of doubt on GMO safety

People pay premium prices for GMO-free food. But the AU/NZ regulator proposes to declare a vast range of new GMO foods non-GMO
This podcast comes from Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility New Zealand. You can hear it here and also on Spotify, where we found the audio quality a little better.

New GMOs deregulated: The wet dream of the biotech industry coming true
Nina Holland of Corporate Europe Observatory talks about the intense lobby battle that the biotech industry has been waging to get its new generation of genetic modification techniques excluded from European GMO regulations.