Three articles challenge proposals to remove safety checks and labelling from new GMOs. Report: Claire Robinson

Three articles published over recent weeks and months demolish the EU Commission's and New Zealand government's proposals for deregulating new GMOs made with techniques such as gene editing. They show why the proposals, which would remove safety checks and labelling from a new generation of GMOs, violate scientific knowledge as well as democratic principles.

Before we summarise and link to those articles, we also recommend an excellent podcast discussion of these issues 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.

The podcast, like the first article below, was prompted by New Zealand's proposal to remove some regulations on GMOs but it is equally relevant to other parts of the world that are moving to deregulate new GMOs, such as Canada, the UK and the EU. The same arguments are being used everywhere and these rebuttals are also valid everywhere.

Incidentally, if you are in New Zealand, you have the opportunity to contribute to an important public consultation that the regulator, FSANZ, is running till 10 September – details on that and how to easily contribute are here.

1. Let's cut the crap

In an excellent and fully referenced article aptly titled "Let's cut the crap on gene technology", molecular biologist Prof Jack Heinemann, himself a genetic engineer who makes extensive use of gene editing, says society should be asking itself why it needs to trade the security of its GMO regulations for unsecured promises from the speculative visions of genetic engineers.

Prof Heinemann takes apart four myths that the advocates for deregulation promote to justify their aims and accuses them of "gaslighting the public".

For instance, regarding the argument that countries that don't deregulate will "miss out", he writes, "The United States provides the counterfactual. It has the most permissive laws and largest number of commercialised GMOs. Yet it has only commercialised 11 GM crops in 30 years. Nearly all GM production is just three crops – corn, soy and cotton – and two traits, herbicide-tolerant and insecticide-producing. GMO agriculture is used on ~15% of US agricultural land, with other GM organisms and traits contributing ~1%. We have missed out on crop losses to dicamba drift and glyphosate-resistant weeds, but not access to drought-, heat-, flood- or salt-tolerant intrinsically higher-yielding crops." He argues that it is not regulation that has held GMOs back so much as lack of useful or significant benefits.

In answer to promises that gene editing is more able than old GM techniques to provide solutions to food and farming problems, he writes: "Gene editing is no more inclined to deliver solutions to the big problems we face from climate change, malnutrition and poverty. Even those who support the legislative changes admit that 'new cultivars created overseas' using new tools like gene editing 'haven’t hit the market yet' even in permissive countries. Two products, a modified oilseed and a hornless cow, appeared then disappeared."

Regarding claims that gene editing is nature-like and therefore low risk, he writes, "Gene-editing techniques accelerate the rate of genetic change, but not safety. There is no limit to the variation that can be introduced through gene editing." This includes outdoor uses, such as gene-editing pesticide sprays, that "will result in unintended exposures and unknown off-target genetic changes in non-target species. These range from microorganisms to pets" – and even humans.

Prof Heinemann concludes: "In sum, faster ≠ safer, deregulation ≠ benefit, deregulation ≠ safety, and scale ≠ safety. The changes call on the public to renounce control over managing the risks from gene technology in exchange for no verifiable evidence of harm from existing regulations and repeating hypothetical benefits from 40-year-old promises."

2. Transparency and traceability vital

In a Danish-language article for the Danish Parliament's online news magazine, Klaus Loehr-Petersen and June Rebekka Bresson of Friends of the Earth Denmark (NOAH) point out that "New genetic engineering is not 'like nature itself'", but can achieve results that would not occur through natural breeding or crossbreeding and carry risks similar to those of older-style GMOs.

They say economic interests are behind the push for deregulation, which aims to rewrite the definition of what constitutes a GMO, providing a shortcut to rapid implementation, consumer acceptance, and strengthening European research: "Gone are risk assessment, traceability and labelling. And gone is the ability for organic and biodynamic farmers to keep their production free from these types of GM crops."

They conclude, "There are still risks associated with GMOs, which is why we must safeguard the Deliberate Release Directive [the existing EU GMO regulation]. In this way, we can also tell consumers with confidence that the GMO food that finds its way to the market is tested, risk-assessed, traceable and found to be safe. Transparency and traceability in food production are prerequisites for continued consumer confidence." Both consumers and producers should continue to have "the opportunity to make fully informed choices".

3. Dubious claims and assumptions

In a fully referenced article for CULTIVAR, a publication of the Portuguese Ministry of Agriculture that is otherwise full of pro-GMO articles, molecular geneticist Prof Michael Antoniou and GMWatch's Claire Robinson describe the failed promises of the first generation of GMOs and expose the "dubious claims on productivity, sustainability, and safety" made for new GM crops. The article is published in both English and Portuguese.

The authors write, "All genes work as part of a network or ecosystem. So changing just one gene can have major impacts on the biochemistry of an organism. In the case of NGTs [new genomic techniques, new GM techniques] and older-style transgenic GM, many gene functions will be altered. This will lead to changes in patterns of gene function and altered biochemistry and composition, which could include the production of novel toxins and allergens. Such unintended alterations could pose threats to health, the environment, and farmers' productivity."

The article, which includes boxes with technical details for those who may find them useful, concludes, "There have been no published studies assessing the health and environmental risks of any given NGT food, including those already marketed, such as the gene-edited tomatoes in Japan that are claimed to help lower blood pressure. Claims that NGT plants are as safe as conventionally bred plants are based on assumptions, not scientific evidence. In conclusion, the outcome from the application of NGTs is far from predictable, so an in-depth safety evaluation is required before marketing and the products must be labelled for the consumer."

Conclusion

This collection of three articles provides an evidence-based and rational case against GMO deregulation. So far, the arguments presented have not been properly addressed by the pro-deregulation lobby, which instead relies on unproven promises and biotech industry wish-lists to make its arguments.

FURTHER RESOURCES

Gene editing: myths, risks, & resources
EFSA is wrong: New GM plants can't be assumed to be as safe as conventional plants

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