GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
        • Notícias em Português
        • Nieuws in het Nederlands
        • Nachrichten in Deutsch
      • Archive
    • Resources
      • GM Myth Makers
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
      • GM Booklet
      • GM Book
    • Contact
    • About
    • Donations
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
  • Resources
    • Non-GM Successes
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
    • GM Booklet
    • GM Book
  • Donations
  • Contact
  • About

INTRODUCTION TO GM

GMO Myths and Facts front page.jpg

GENE EDITING MYTHS, RISKS, & RESOURCES

Gene Editing Myths and Reality

CITIZENS’ GUIDE TO GM

GMO Myths and Truths front cover

PLEASE SUPPORT GMWATCH

Donations

If you like what we do, please help us do more. You can donate via Paypal or credit/debit card. Some of you have opted to give a regular donation. We greatly appreciate that as it helps place us on a more stable financial basis. Thank you for your support!

European Commission’s biased road to deregulation of new GMOs

Details
Published: 04 October 2022
Twitter

Forty groups say targeted survey is fatally flawed and cannot be used for impact assessment of “new genomic techniques” legislation

Forty organisations, including GMWatch, have sent a letter to EU Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides to express serious concerns over the way in which the Directorate-General for Health (DG SANTE) is organising the impact assessment on new GMOs – new genomic techniques (NGTs) – and in particular, the consultations that will feed into the assessment. The outcome of this assessment could have far-reaching impacts on consumer choice, food safety, organic and conventional farming, and the environment.

The letter especially highlights the fatal errors in the targeted survey on NGTs, in which most of the signatories have been invited to participate, and that made it impossible for many NGOs to answer. Others completed the survey but later had to withdraw or correct their responses. The public consultation led by the EU Commission in early summer 2022 was already characterised by a lack of transparency and biased and misleading questions and answer options.

The letter concludes that the consultation suffers from serious flaws and shortcomings and thus cannot provide a sound basis to feed into decisions about safety regulations for GMOs, nor can it justifiably be used as a basis for the assessment of a new legal framework for new genomic techniques.

The groups call on the Commission to repeat those parts of the impact assessment on NGTs that fall short of the required EU standards. More broadly, they ask the Commission to follow the European Court of Justice decision which made clear that the newer generation of GMOs must be defined as GMOs.


Read the letter:
https://gmwatch.org/en/20108-open-letter-european-commission-s-biased-road-to-deregulation-of-new-gmos

Menu

Home

Subscriptions

News Archive

News Reviews

GM Book

Resources

Non-GM Successes

GM Myth Makers

GM Myths

GM Quotes

GM Booklet

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

Donations

Content 1999 - 2025 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design