Test

Details: Published: 10 August 2025

GM Freeze’s Leonie Nimmo reports on a disturbing meeting

Details: Published: 07 August 2025

Commentary by Third World Network

Details: Published: 05 August 2025

Physicians' association deplores "persistent gap between available scientific knowledge and regulatory decisions". Report: Jonathan Matthews and Claire Robinson

Details: Published: 01 August 2025

Glyphosate-resistant weeds are main driver for this development. Report: Claire Robinson

Details: Published: 21 July 2025

Welcome to our latest Review, which not only brings news of the latest developments and studies, but also highlights urgent actions you can take on glyphosate if you’re in the US (GLYPHOSATE UPDATES) and new GMOs if you’re in the UK (NEW GMOs UPDATES).

Resistance to the prospect of new GMOs entering the food supply unlabelled continues, with legal action pending in the UK, a big petition in New Zealand, and continuing outcry in Europe (NEW GMOs UPDATES). In North America, the leading organic pork producer is calling for labelling of gene-edited pigs (CONCERN OVER GENE-EDITED ANIMALS). Academics and scientists are also joining calls for transparency and biosafety standards to be upheld (NEW GMOs UPDATES).

We also have details of some excellent new critiques of the myth making that lies behind attacks on an important glyphosate study and how ghostwriting shaped two decades of glyphosate safety discourse (GLYPHOSATE UPDATES). And in our final section (FAILING TO FEED THE WORLD), we have some brilliant debunking of one of the most enduring myths of proponents of GMOs, pesticides, and the industrial agriculture model as a whole.

GLYPHOSATE UPDATES

UNITED STATES URGENT ACTION: Tell your US Representative to remove bill language stopping farmers and consumers from suing chemical companies

Pushed by Bayer/Monsanto and the chemical industry, language has been inserted into Sections 453 and 507 of a bill before the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee that provides total immunity against lawsuits that challenge chemical manufacturers who withhold information on the harm that their products can cause. It also prohibits EPA action on PFAS, which includes fluorinated pesticides. This action by Beyond Pesticides makes it easy to ask your member of the US House of Representatives to help stop this dangerous legislation. For an explanation of exactly how the wording in this bill creates total immunity, see the comments of the attorney Daniel Hinkle, from the American Association for Justice, quoted towards the end of this substack.

US: Senator Cory Booker pitches bill to allow lawsuits against pesticide makers over “toxic products”
Senator Cory Booker has introduced legislation that would create a federal “right of action”, allowing people to sue pesticide makers such as Bayer and Syngenta, and others, for allegedly causing health issues such as cancer and Parkinson’s disease. The Pesticide Injury Accountability Act would “ensure that pesticide manufacturers can be held responsible for the harm caused by their toxic products”, according to a summary of the bill. If passed, the law would turn the tables on efforts by Bayer and a coalition of agricultural organisations as they push for state-by-state legislation blocking individuals from being able to file lawsuits accusing the companies of failing to warn of the risks of their products. Booker’s bill would allow those suits in federal courts instead. The industry is also pushing for federal preemptive protections against litigation – see item above.

Webinar on the Global Glyphosate Study – watch now!
A recording is now available of an important recent webinar about the most comprehensive study ever conducted on glyphosate, which featured its only UK-based contributor, Michael Antoniou (Professor of Molecular Genetics and Toxicology at King's College London). Prof Antoniou explains how the study confirms glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides cause multiple types of cancer, even at exposure levels deemed to be “safe” by the EU, and why that requires major changes in its regulation. He concludes: “Glyphosate, and even more so its commercial formulations, are carcinogenic. It’s as simple as that… it should be banned.” Such was the interest in this webinar that some 1800 people signed up for it, including those in government, academia, civil society and the private sector, as well as concerned citizens. Do watch and share. You can also read a recent article about the study here.

Glyphosate and cancer: A textbook case of “manufacturing doubt”
The recent study confirming glyphosate herbicide’s carcinogenic potential (see item above) has immediately come under fire. However, these attacks are based on flawed scientific grounds, Le Monde reports. In consultation with experts, Stéphane Foucart, Le Monde’s science correspondent, takes apart the criticisms and exposes them as baseless and involving sleight of hand. Read the analysis in full in English here.

The afterlife of a ghost-written paper: How Monsanto’s hidden authorship shaped two decades of glyphosate safety discourse

Corporate ghost-writing is a form of scientific fraud, but a new paper, co-authored by the world-renowned historian of science Naomi Oreskes, shows how it can shape public health and safety. It analyses the impact of a ghostwritten paper crafted by Monsanto to support claims of glyphosate safety. Despite revelations of its ghostwritten nature, the paper has never been retracted, continues to be cited, and has exerted considerable influence, shaping public understanding, scientific discourse, and policy decisions. An analysis of policy and governance documents that cite it revealed that the vast majority referenced it uncritically. In academic literature, it is in the top 0.1 % by citation count among papers discussing glyphosate, indicating broad uptake, with minimal acknowledgment of conflict of interest. The ghostwritten paper has also been frequently cited in multiple articles on Wikipedia to support the safety of glyphosate or glyphosate-based herbicides; attempts to contextualise its ghostwritten origins have been repeatedly reversed or removed, illustrating how corporate-sponsored science infiltrates public knowledge platforms. Oreskes and her co-author say retraction and stronger oversight are vital, as these sources shape public perception and feed AI and Large Language Model (LLM) training data.

NEW GMOs UPDATES

UK ACTION: Support legal action and say “no” to hidden GMOs

Beyond GM has announced important news about a significant legal challenge they have just launched – and how you can help make it happen. In May, the UK government quietly brought in new regulations that fundamentally change how GMOs are regulated in England, with knock on effects for the rest of the UK. The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 create a new category of GMOs, with the Orwellian name “precision bred organisms” (PBOs), which are exempted from the food and environmental safety requirements of other types of GMOs. This is sleight of hand, not least because the gene-editing process is far from precise and has serious implications for the environment and our food system. The new regulations also allow these gene-edited GMOs with no history of safe use to enter the food system and wider environment without labelling, without adequate traceability systems, and without any proper safety testing or impact assessments. Please, if you can, donate to Beyond GM’s legal action “fighting fund”. You can read more about the details of their legal challenge here.

New GMOs: 18 French NGOs warn of the risks of European deregulation
Eighteen French organisations, ranging from farmers' unions to consumer associations, have joined forces in an open letter to the French government and MEPs. The message is clear: the draft European regulation on new GM techniques (new genomic techniques, NGT) that is being discussed in Brussels represents a major threat to agriculture, food and the environment.

European laboratories join forces to call for detection methods for all new GMOs

On 27 June, 12 laboratories across Europe came together to write an open letter to EU policy makers, ahead of the recently-cancelled round of trilogue negotiations on the legislation to determine the regulation of New GMOs (NGTs/new genomic techniques) – which had been due to start on 30 June. Initiated by Spanish lab and ENGA (an organisation that advocates for the European non-GMO food and feed industry sectors) member Imegen Agro the letter urges lawmakers to ensure the future NGT legislation requires that laboratories get detection methods, reference material and data on the genetic modification and its location for category 1 NGT plants.

New Zealand: Petition calls for halt to Gene Technology Bill as export leaders urge cautious approach
A group of concerned citizens is urging the government to halt the proposed Gene Technology Bill, which deregulates a whole class of GMOs. A petition was presented to Labour MP Deborah Russell at Parliament requesting work on the bill be paused. The thousands of signatories included scientists, health professionals, and organic producers. Among those urging caution is Beef + Lamb NZ, which says many farmers support reform in principle but are concerned about traceability, export risk and a lack of engagement. Dr Elvira Dommisse, a former government crop researcher during the first wave of GMOs in the 1990s, called the bill “the Wild West of genetic modification”. One of NZ’s leading GMO risk experts, Prof Jack Heinemann, was not consulted on the bill before it was presented to Parliament. “I have never been contacted by either officials or government to discuss the Gene Tech Bill,” he said. “It is no secret that I do not support the bill in its present form.”

Why regulations in plant gene editing are a must
Although some scientists believe current regulations on agricultural gene editing are too restrictive, a new paper from the University of Adelaide highlights the need for clear, well-defined rules to ensure emerging technologies are applied safely and ethically. Published in The Plant Journal, the focused review – authored by Dr Emily Buddle, Michail Ivanov, and Professor Rachel Ankeny – argues that regulation is essential not only for safety, but also for fostering public engagement and trust in gene-editing innovation. “Regulatory decisions are not just about scientific facts or economic benefits. They always involve value judgements, especially concerning safety, risk and societal benefits,” Buddle explains. The paper concludes, “Regulation permits regulators and diverse publics to engage with research and assess whether the particular application of gene technology is desirable and beneficial beyond the laboratory bench or field.” The new paper is here.

AI and genetically engineered organisms: a biosafety issue

Experts agree that advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and genetic engineering can result in new risks for health and biosecurity. A wide range of users, including malicious actors, will be enabled to engineer biology and generate new pathogens, toxins, or other outputs that could be weaponised. At the same time, possible biosafety issues often slip under the radar. These include applications in plants and animals that may, even though well-intentioned, result in substantial risks for nature and the environment. In the EU, ongoing negotiations on new GM techniques (new genomic techniques, NGTs) applied to plants could exempt the huge majority of these plants from risk assessment. AI could make it even easier to circumvent the Commission's ‘magic threshold’ of 20 genetic changes, underneath which NGT plants would be considered safer than other genetically engineered plants. When taking their decision on this far-reaching deregulation, policymakers must take risks for environment, biodiversity and health into account. A video of experts discussing these issues will soon be available from Testbiotech.

GMO deregulation won’t fix potato blight

In a letter published in the Dutch KNPV (Royal Netherlands Society of Plant Pathology) member magazine Gewasbescherming (“Crop Protection”), Piet Boonekamp, a researcher at Wageningen University & Research (WUR), advocates the use of cisgenesis – the transfer by genetic engineering of genetic material within a particular species – to control Phytophthora, the fungus that causes late blight in potatoes. He argues that the long-standing impasse in removing new GM techniques from “outdated” EU regulations is causing much-needed innovation to stagnate. Do we need GM – old or new – to combat potato blight? Agriculture and food writer Theo Grent says we don’t. He responded to Boonekamp’s letter in an article in Gewasbescherming. Bottom line: There are agroecological ways to manage potato blight and GM approaches have only offered years of failure at the taxpayer's expense.

Syngenta cuts UK wheat breeding, GMO lobby worried
Despite UK governments rushing post-Brexit to loosen GMO regulations in order to steal a march on the more cautious European Union, the GMO and chemical giant Syngenta will close its Cambridge-based UK wheat breeding programme after 35 years, focusing its activity on the European continent instead. Lamenting this development and others that might affect the future of GMOs in the UK, the long-time GMO-pushing farmer David Hill writes on the pro-GMO lobbying website Science for Sustainable Agriculture: “While England has carved out a clear head start over the rest of Europe in relation to gene editing in agriculture with the passing into law of the Precision Breeding Act, are we about to cede advantage to the EU on this issue too?”

CONCERN OVER GENE-EDITED ANIMALS

Organic producer calls for mandatory labelling of gene-edited pork in North America
As we reported in Review 584, the US Food and Drug Administration recently greenlighted CRISPR gene-edited pigs, engineered to resist the respiratory virus known as porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, or PRRS. The virus thrives on intensive factory farms and kills piglets in the womb. Now duBreton, North America's leading producer of organic pork, is calling for transparency, saying it “adamantly opposes gene editing in livestock production, citing both ethical concerns and a lack of long-term risk assessment”. While GMO promoters claim engineering PRRS-resistance will reduce animal suffering and limit antibiotic use, duBreton disputes these assertions as misleading and unsupported by evidence: “We’ve achieved the same outcomes for decades – without genetic modification… Through natural husbandry, selective breeding and strict biosecurity protocols, duBreton has raised healthy pigs without antibiotics, while upholding the integrity of organic farming.”

Gene-edited pigs may soon enter the Canadian market, but questions about their impact remain
The Canadian government is currently considering approving the entry of gene-edited pigs into the food system. If approved, these pigs would be the first gene-edited food animals available for sale in Canadian markets. Prof Gwendolyn Blue and colleagues’ research examines how including the public in decision-making around emerging applications of genomics can help mitigate potential harms. Public reactions to previous GM food animals in Canada – including AquAdvantage salmon and the EnviroPig – show that lack of inclusive engagement can contribute to the rejection of GM animals. According to Prof Blue: “Social science research has, for decades, demonstrated that resistance to biotechnology is not because of the public’s lack of knowledge, as is often argued by biotechnology proponents. Public resistance to biotechnology is better understood as a rejection of potential harms imposed by governments and industry without public input and consent.”

FAILING TO FEED THE WORLD

The enduring fantasy of “feeding the world”

In an important new essay, the food scholars Adam Calo, Maywa Montenegro, Ben Iuliano and Alastair Iles debunk the feed-the-world myth of industrial agriculture. In its latest repackaging, this myth with its fixation on boosting yield is being promoted not just as the remedy for global hunger through greater output, but as using less land – due to its efficiency in commodity production, and hence the way to leave more land available for nature. But the authors show that industrial agriculture has not only proven bad at feeding people, failing to budge food insecurity, but it doesn’t lead to “land sparing” either. In fact, the environmental geographer Gregory Thaler, who followed the implementation of land-sparing policy in the Brazilian Amazon, calls it an “alibi for ecocide”. The authors also argue that this productivist approach fuels colonialism. What the enduring fantasy of feeding the world is good for, of course, is promoting all manner of supposedly yield-boosting technological fixes, while laundering the horrors of the industrial food system. It also enables global hunger to be weaponised to silence the voices of agrarian change, being “consistently used as a cudgel to silence alternative farming and nourishment strategies”. This must-read essay contains so many well-argued points that it more than repays reading in full.

Commentary on the “feeding the world” fantasy
On Bluesky, the anthropologist Dr Andrew Flachs, who researches food and agriculture systems, has done a thread commenting on Adam Calo et al’s essay (see item above). In this thread, as Calo commented, Flachs highlights “a depth of research on this issue, which is just so much more than yields vs hunger”. Check it out for its insightful comments and links.

Is famous proof of the triumph of science the most deceptive graph ever made?
Nobody is better at debunking the myths of industrial agriculture than Glenn Davis Stone. It was Stone who famously pointed out that new research suggested the claim of a “billion lives saved” by the Green Revolution, which is so often used as a framing for GM crops, was not just badly wrong but that the number of lives actually saved appeared to be zero. In a new piece on another key component of industrial agriculture mythology, Stone looks at “the most reproduced chart in anything ever written on agriculture,” which shows the meteoric rise in US corn yields following the adoption of hybrid corn. This also gets used, as Stone notes, to validate GM crop technologies. But in reality, as he explains, “If the input-intensive, over-producing corn hybrids were a disaster in the 20th century, they are likely to be even worse in the 21st”.

Details: Published: 17 July 2025

But cotton expert advises minister of good non-GMO solutions, reports Colin Todhunter

Details: Published: 15 July 2025

Ag and food writer says GMO deregulation lobby live “in a fantasy land of precision, predictability and imagined safety”; points instead to agroecological controls. Report: Claire Robinson

Details: Published: 11 July 2025

It’s time to step up the opposition to designer babies, says Marcy Darnovsky of the Center for Genetics and Society

Details: Published: 09 July 2025

In his book, The Mutant Project: Inside the Global Race to Genetically Modify Humans, the scholar Eben Kirksey explains how metaphors like gene editing, which suggest precision, in reality hide messy cellular dynamics. Kirksey says an armed drone attack gives a more accurate comparison. He writes:

“Gene ‘editing’ is not a particularly good metaphor for explaining the science of CRISPR. With the computer I can easily cut and paste text from one application to another, or make clean deletions – letter by letter, line by line. But CRISPR does not have these precise editorial functions. CRISPR is more like a tiny reaper drone that can produce targeted damage to DNA. Sometimes it makes a precision, missile strike, destroying the target. It can also produce serious collateral damage, like a drone attack that accidentally takes out a wedding party instead of the intended target. Scientists often accidentally blast away big chunks of DNA as they try to improve the code of life. CRISPR can also go astray when the pre-programmed coordinates are ambiguous, like a rogue drone that automatically strikes the friends, neighbours, and relatives of a suspected terrorist. 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.

“It is important to signal a sense of risk or need for caution in using CRISPR. Other metaphors – like genetic ‘surgery’ or DNA ‘hacking’ – have been proposed to replace the idea of ‘editing’. The idea of genetic surgery suggests that there can be a slip of the surgeon's knife, creating an unintended injury. Each of these images – the targeted missile, the surgeon's scalpel, the hacker’s code – offers a perspective on how CRISPR works, even while concealing messy cellular dynamics. In the absence of a perfect metaphor, ultimately, I think the technical language describes it best: CRISPR is an enzyme that produces targeted mutagenesis.

“In other words, CRISPR generates mutants.”

Details: Published: 06 July 2025

USDA poised to approve release of GM American chestnut trees based on botched research

Details: Published: 06 July 2025

GMO developers must supply detection methods, reference material and details of the genetic modification as part of authorisation procedure, say detection labs

Details: Published: 03 July 2025

by Sustainable Pulse. Source: Le Monde, by Stéphane Foucart (article translated from French to English by Sustainable Pulse)

Details: Published: 02 July 2025

In this Review we’re excited to announce a major new resource on the 30 years of broken GMO promises. One of GMWatch’s key messages has always been the extraordinary gap between GMO promises and delivery. So we were delighted to be asked by Save Our Seeds to collaborate on creating a new website – GMO Promises – that systematically sets out how the hyped silver bullet solutions used to promote this technology turn out again and again to be wildly misleading or just plain duds (see GMO FAILURES for details of the new site, as well as all the latest trainwrecks emanating from the agbiotech industry).

This Review also has sections on the ongoing RESISTANCE TO GMOs around the world; the fight for FOOD AND SEED SOVEREIGNTY; GMO EXPANSIONS (not much to worry about – just a niche tomato and more sliced apples in plastic); and the latest attempt to pass off a NON-GMO SUCCESS as an achievement of genetic engineering.

GMO FAILURES

Bitter harvest – 30 years of broken GMO promises

Whatever happened to GM Golden Rice? And wasn’t GM salmon supposed to revolutionise aquaculture? Three decades after the first GMO crops were planted, Save Our Seeds, in collaboration with GMWatch and with contributions from Beyond GM, explores the fate of eight GMO promises once presented as game-changers. The conclusion: bold claims, dismal delivery. In 1995, the US Department of Agriculture approved the first Bt maize and glyphosate-tolerant soybean, opening the way for large-scale cultivation of GM crops. The promises came thick and fast: GMOs would feed the world, reduce chemical use, and save children from malnutrition. Thirty years on, a small number of GM crops occupy just 13% of global arable land, largely concentrated in a handful of countries. And most of the promises remain unmet. Save Our Seeds’ new website, GMO Promises, is a resource for journalists, policymakers, campaigners, scientists, investors, and anyone else looking to understand the real legacy of GMO technologies and what lessons should be learned as the next wave of biotech rolls in. The website presents eight prominent claims and shows what really happened in each case.

USDA poised to approve release of genetically engineered trees based on botched research

Bizarrely, the USDA wants to deregulate (approve for release into the wild) the GM American chestnut tree in spite of the fact that it is known to be defective and prone to blight – and could therefore pose a risk to remaining naturally blight-resistant wild chestnuts. Initially, the developers at SUNY ESF submitted data to the USDA on the wrong GM tree (D54) – the field trials and other research were also done on D54 when they were mistakenly claimed to be on D58. The developers subsequently amended their petition for deregulation to name D54 instead of D58. The USDA doesn’t care that the safety and performance data were gathered on the wrong tree, or that the GM tree has been shown to be defective and could pose a risk to wild chestnuts. The USDA has opened up a public comment period until 21 July 2025. See below for how to take part.

TAKE ACTION: Help stop defective genetically engineered American chestnut tree!
Please help stop the world’s first ever mass release of a fertile GMO plant into the wild – which is being promoted as a solution to climate change. Take action! The deadline for submitting your comment to the USDA to stop the GE D54 Chestnut is 21 July.
1. SUBMIT YOUR COMMENT at the government website.
2. SIGN THE SIGN-ON LETTER developed by the Campaign to STOP GE Trees to collect signatures against the D54 deregulation. The letter has arguments you can use in your own comments, as well as background information.
3. SHARE THE SIGN ON LETTER:
Bluesky
Facebook
X
YouTube
Instagram

New Yorkers restore the American chestnut with non-GM trees while GM fails
New Yorkers are planting non-GM blight-resistant American chestnut tree seeds in back yards and local parks. The seeds come from trees that so far have proven remarkably resilient – unlike the poorly performing GM trees that SUNY ESF are seeking to deregulate (see items above). The GM alternative “isn’t a restoration project, it’s a genetically flawed science experiment poised for commercialisation at the expense of our forests,” Anne Petermann of the Global Justice Ecology Project told the Guardian. “The forests deserve real science, not flawed experiments.” (For more on the failure of the GM American chestnut project, see GMO Promises.)

GM no-till agriculture is not “regenerative” or climate-friendly – new report

GMO proponents claim that GM herbicide-tolerant corn and soy have enabled uptake of no-till or minimum-till farming, saving soil from erosion, increasing carbon sequestration in soil, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and thus contributing positively to “regenerative” farming. But a new report from Friends of the Earth (FoE), Rethinking No-Till, refutes the widely held assumption that no-till automatically equals “regenerative”. Indeed, the report shows that not only does GMO-based no-till fail to solve the climate crisis, but it is part of the problem. The report also finds that most no-till systems are so heavily dependent on toxic herbicides to manage weeds that a staggering one-third of the US’s total annual pesticide use can be attributed to no- and minimum-till GM corn and soy production alone. The FoE report comes on the heels of a peer-reviewed study showing that GM crops have led to increased tillage and greenhouse gas emissions in US corn and soy.

GM crops fuel rise in pesticide use despite early promises: study

In April 2025, a new study rebutted claims that GM crops cut chemical use. Published in the Journal of Agrarian Change, the research found that GM crops have deepened agriculture’s dependency on pesticides rather than reducing it. Drawing on data from four GM crops – Bt cotton, herbicide-tolerant (HT) soybean, HT and/or Bt maize, and HT rapeseed – the researchers traced the surge in chemical use over three decades. They found as GM seeds were adopted, pesticide use soared. What began as a cost-saving solution turned into a cycle of higher expenses and increased pesticide use.

GM fish firm owes contractor nearly $1.6 million, lawsuit claims
AquaBounty Farms Ohio LLC stands accused of owing nearly $1.6 million to a contractor it hired to help construct a land-based aquaculture plant for raising genetically modified salmon in Pioneer, Ohio. The project was never finished. It came to a halt in June 2023. The GM fish firm’s stock has plummeted in recent months. In December, it ceased all remaining fish-rearing operations. From the first hint that AquaBounty’s GM salmon would be approved, surveys of US consumers showed rejection of the product. For more on the comprehensive failure of this GM salmon project, see the new resource, GMO Promises.

India: Bt cotton seed price hike – experts call for review as yields decline and pest attacks rise
The Indian government’s decision to raise Bt cotton seed prices ahead of the monsoon season drew sharp criticism from experts and farmers, who pointed to declining yields and rising pink bollworm infestations in recent years. Critics alleged that the government approved the hike without assessing the seeds’ performance or consulting those most affected. Farmers have reported mounting losses and rising debts due to recurring pest attacks over the last several years. Cotton yields have steadily declined.

Indigenous cotton – India’s textile future (video)
Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi says today the majority of India’s cotton is GMO Bt cotton– controlled by foreign corporations like Monsanto. He says the indigenous varieties are disappearing, water use is unsustainable, and farmers remain underpaid. Hence India needs to invest in indigenous cotton.

India’s native cotton was stamped out. Can it be revived?
Indigenous cotton varieties once thrived in India, supporting a vast artisanal economy. Farmers, ginners, spinners and artisans existed in an interdependent chain. But centuries of colonial extraction and ecological displacement all but stamped out this economy, leaving India with a cotton industry that is now dominated by industrial-scale farming, monocultures and genetically modified crops. These developments came at a cost: declining soil health, increased pesticide reliance and a system that prioritises yield over resilience. Now, in grassroots initiatives, indigenous varieties of cotton, grown under organic systems, are being revived.

West Australia grain farmers pull back GM canola plantings for the first time as non-GM price premiums rise
West Australia grain farmers are slowing down their plantings of GM canola for the first time, enticed by a price premium of up to $100 per tonne for non-GM canola. More than 1.73 million hectares of canola has been planted across West Australia fields this year, with GM plantings stalling and non-GM plantings increasing as farmers weigh up agronomics and financial pay-off.

UK GMO research institute’s glory days are in the past, says agribiz consultant
In an article on the pro-GMO-deregulation lobbying website Science for Sustainable Agriculture (see our profile), agribusiness consultant James Wallace pushes for UK public science research and development to be even more industry-influenced and “market” orientated than it already is. The article contains criticisms of the John Innes Centre (JIC) – a research institute heavily oriented towards corporate (especially GMO) interests – including the claim that its glory days are all in the past. Wallace writes, “Renowned internationally for its high-quality science and league-topping performance in academic publications, JIC’s demonstrable impact at farm level is rather less impressive... The JIC website’s statement that ‘the John Innes Centre returns £15.22 to the UK economy for every £1 invested’ is... open to challenge, since it is not based on past performance but on theoretical and highly optimistic forward projections over the next 10, 15 and 25 years.” And, we would add, as the GMO Promises project shows, when it comes to GM crops, such projections have often proven to be complete fairytales. For more on the JIC, see this resource.

GMO EXPANSION

US: They’re coming for your kids! – GM Arctic apple
A new 2-ounce GMO Arctic apple packaging has been rolled out in schools and foodservice channels nationwide, featuring “bold, playful colours” in bright “kid-friendly packaging” plus “Artie”, their new mascot. The GMO Arctic apple slogan is “Keep an eye out for Artie!” We think you should. Tell your kids to avoid Artie and his genetically engineered apples, which are pre-sliced and sold in plastic packaging. Fresh non-GMO apples are widely available and don’t need to come wrapped in plastic!

GM purple tomatoes coming to Northern California restaurants
Norfolk Healthy Produce has commercial growers lined up in Northern California for its GM purple tomatoes for the 2025 growing season, primarily aimed at the restaurant trade. The company is a 2021 startup that is bringing the tomato to market. It got its tomatoes into some supermarkets on the US East Coast last year. Other than selling seed packets and seedlings to home gardeners and some limited fresh fruit at a farmers’ market, the commercial crop this year will be the company’s first foray into large-scale sales on the West Coast.

Regulators assessing bid to grow and sell GM purple tomato in Australia
Norfolk Healthy Produce’s GM purple tomato could be sold in Australian supermarkets next year if regulators approve a bid to grow it in Australia.

GM purple tomato “will help feed the world” – Forbes
In 2023 Forbes published an article claiming that the GM purple tomato (see above) “will help feed the world” – a pro-GMO narrative so old, hackneyed, and discredited that we didn’t expect to see it again, especially so when applied to a tomato targeted at the same higher-end market as “premium cherry” and heirloom tomatoes. Let’s hope, for the sake of sanity, that Forbes was being ironic. For more about the outlandish fantasies conjured up in the media about this purple tomato, and the safety concerns that they ignore, see this, this, and this.

RESISTANCE TO GMOs

India: Government illegally evicted environmental campaigner Aruna Rodrigues, court says
GMWatch has received the good news that the environmental campaigner Aruna Rodrigues, who was forcibly evicted from her home by weapons-touting Indian army personnel just before Christmas 2022, has won her case against the Indian government in court. In the strongly worded ruling, the judge said: “The manner in which the defendants [the government] have taken possession of the disputed property is wholly illegal and defies all canons of law.” The court ordered the government to return the keys to her home by 30 June – and we hear she is already back in her home. Many will know Aruna as the initiator of the court case that stayed the rollout of GM mustard in India. Her supporters said that as the lead petitioner in the Indian Supreme Court case against GMOs, Aruna had been a target of attack by the State for some time and they suspected the eviction was a crude attempt to disempower her. More information here. (No link in header)

Guatemala: Indigenous peoples denounce GMO threats, defend food sovereignty
In April in Guatemala, organisations of Indigenous peoples, peasants, scientists and activists gathered for the 2025 Food Sovereignty Seminar , where a powerful declaration was issued in defence of native seeds, ancestral knowledge, and food sovereignty. Under the slogan “We care for and defend the seeds for the continuity of life”, participants denounced the growing threat posed by genetic modification technologies, particularly the recent allocation of public funds to an NGO linked to the company Semilla Nueva for the development of gene-edited maize using CRISPR-Cas technology.

Why did Mexico amend constitution to prohibit GM corn seeds?
Commenting on Mexico’s amendment to its constitution prohibiting the use of GM corn seeds, pesticide and agbiotech expert Charles Benbrook commented, “Few people in the US, including most US corn farmers, understand why Mexico is so worried about what GMO corn could do to their public health. But corn is king in Mexico. It accounts for 60 percent of daily caloric intake... When evaluated and approved years ago, the combined expression level of Bt toxins [the pest-killing toxins in GM corn] in corn kernels at harvest were almost always less than 10 ppm. Today, most GM corn varieties express 50 ppm to 100 ppm, and some are over 100 ppm.” And the EPA is now “updating its evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate”.

India: Pushback as US pressures Modi to allow imports of GM crops
An alliance of farmers’ associations and agricultural scientists promoting sustainable agriculture are among those appealing to India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi not to allow the import of GM crops in its final negotiations for a trade agreement with the United States. They warned that it “would have serious and irreparable implications for India’s agriculture, biosafety, public health, rural livelihoods, and seed and food sovereignty”. The Global Trade Research Initiative also warned about the implications for food security, noting that crops like GM soy benefit from deep subsidies in the US, which gives them an unfair advantage over Indian producers. They also noted the strong opposition to GM foods in India and that India’s loose supply chains mean GM traits could easily leak into domestic systems, contaminating local crops and hurting exports to GM-sensitive markets.

Bangladesh’s GMO buffet: Eat first, ask questions never
In a searing indictment of Bangladesh’s non-functional food regulatory system, a barrister writes: “In most parts of the world, the phrase ‘you are what you eat’ is taken as a serious motivation for health. In Bangladesh, we take it as a threat... Bangladesh was the first country in South Asia to commercially release a genetically modified food crop: Bt brinjal, rolled out in 2013 with all the subtlety of a government-sponsored watch party... No warning labels. No meaningful consumer consent. Just ‘Here, take this magic seed. Don’t ask questions. Smile for the Ministry of Agriculture.’ Since then, we’ve been flirting with Golden Rice, GM potatoes, and whatever Frankenstein crop is next on the donor-funded wish list. And still – still – there’s no mandatory GMO labelling.”

Brazil: Mega-operation to combat trade in genetically modified fish
A mega-operation launched in seven states and the Federal District of Brazil to combat the illegal keeping and trade of genetically modified ornamental fish has so far resulted in 36 infraction notices, totalling 2.38 million Brazilian reals (about $440,000 US) in fines, and the seizure of 58,482 modified specimens of species used in aquarium keeping.

FOOD AND SEED SOVEREIGNTY

New film showcases what’s wrong with food and farming – and how to put it right

An inspiring and insightful new film, In Symbiosis, looks at what’s gone wrong with food and farming (including the GMO and pesticides treadmill) and points to ways we can put them back on track towards greater sustainability and resilience. Directed by Helena Berndl and Francesco Maria Gallo, In Symbiosis features interviews with experts from across the world, including regenerative farmers, molecular geneticist Prof Michael Antoniou, GMWatch co-director Claire Robinson, and food sovereignty champion Dr Vandana Shiva.

Coalition of conventional and organic farmers call for an end to patents on seeds
In Germany, dairy farmers, plant breeders, the leading organic farming association, the largest conventional farmers association, Germany’s protestant churches and the Catholic Rural Movement, have all united in a call for an end to patents on seeds. This demand from such a broad alliance to stop the monopolisation of genetic resources through patents applies to all seeds, whether conventionally bred or GMO. But it obviously has particular relevance to the current negotiations in the European Union on new GMOs (NGTs). These negotiations are currently stalled over this very issue, as well as the refusal of the European Commission and a good number of EU governments to allow any traceability, labelling, or transparency with new GMOs.

How billionaires are destroying Africa’s agriculture (video)
In a must-watch video from The Guardian, Neelam Tailor exposes how billionaires like Bill Gates are destroying Africa’s agriculture. The video covers the criminalisation of farmer seed saving.

Africa: Countries asked to withdraw law that criminalises traditional seed savers
Kenya’s Seed and Plant Variety Act not only says all seeds must be certified by the government, but directly prohibits smallholder farmers from selling or sharing indigenous seeds or saving their seeds for the next harvest. Penalties include up to two years in jail or a 1 million Kenyan shilling (nearly $8,000 US) fine. Kenyan peasant farmers have long protested against this draconian law, which they say is a threat to food security and favours large-scale farmers. Kenya introduced the law because it is a signatory to the UPOV 1991 Act, which applies to all countries that are signatory to this international convention that gives powerful monopoly rights to commercial seed developers. Food system activists in Africa are campaigning for countries like Kenya to withdraw from UPOV, and for those countries that have not yet signed onto UPOV to keep out of its trap.

Top 10 agribusiness giants: Corporate concentration in food and farming in 2025
A new report examines the state of corporate concentration in six sectors critical to agriculture: commercial seeds, pesticides, synthetic fertilisers, farm machinery, animal pharmaceuticals and livestock genetics. Corporate consolidation has increased in recent years in most of these sectors and four of them – seeds, pesticides, agricultural machinery and animal pharmaceuticals – meet the definition of an oligopoly, in that just four companies (Bayer, Corteva, Syngenta and BASF in the case of seeds) control more than 40% of the market. The report also highlights corporate investment in new technologies, like digital platforms, artificial intelligence (AI) and gene editing, which are likely to deepen corporate power in the food system.

Just 100 corporations behind a fifth of global extractive conflicts, study reveals – and Bayer-Monsanto is one of them
Just one hundred corporations are behind a fifth of the documented extractive conflicts worldwide, exposing how companies from the Global North seize resources and profits, while social and ecological harms are imposed on the Global South, according to a study. The most conflictive 100 corporations – including Bayer-Monsanto – represent only 2% of the 5,500 companies documented in the Global Environmental Justice Atlas (EJAtlas) and yet are involved in 20% of the conflicts analysed.

GMOs – stories from the frontlines of GM agriculture (video)
An animated short video from Pesticide Action Network tells the GMO story from the farmers’ points of view. Corporations told farmers their seeds weren’t good enough or modern enough – when the real problem was local seeds weren’t profitable enough for corporate shareholders. The video explains the impacts of GMO seeds and the toxic chemicals that go with them.

It’s not a broken system – from food to development, it’s a masterpiece of control
“Industrial agriculture is not a system in crisis,” writes Colin Todhunter – “It is a system in command. Engineered with precision, it reflects the civilisational logic of industrial modernity: domination over cooperation, profit over sufficiency, scale over ecology. It is not malfunctioning – it is functioning exactly as designed.”

NON-GMO SUCCESSES

Non-GM bean breeding success claimed as GM breakthrough
In what has become a time-honoured tradition, yet another non-GM breeding success has been proclaimed a triumph of genetic engineering in an article written by Lucy Carter and published in The Guardian. The article says that three bean varieties have been developed in the UK. The varieties were developed by Prof Eric Holub at the University of Warwick. They reportedly “can germinate fast and in cold soils”. Prof Holub told The Guardian that the beans were made using "conventional breeding and genetics" – the latter referring to gene mapping, a biotechnology which was used to identify the desirable genes but which doesn’t result in a GMO. Yet bizarrely, Lucy Carter – or, perhaps more likely, a tabloid-minded editor – managed to headline her article, “Beans are being genetically engineered to grow in the UK”! Was this an innocent mistake, or the latest in a long history of deception, prompted by the decades-long catalogue of failures of promised GM “solutions” as against the astonishing successes of conventional non-GMO breeding? More on those successes here.

Details: Published: 01 July 2025

Please donate to the legal action "fighting fund"

Details: Published: 27 June 2025

Commission and Council won't compromise on key issues, including traceability and labelling

Details: Published: 26 June 2025

By Non-GMO Project staff

Details: Published: 24 June 2025

While our last Review covered the latest findings confirming the health dangers of glyphosate, in this Review we focus mainly on a series of important recent legal and political developments, most of which have taken place in the US. But we also have important news from the EU, the UK, France, New Zealand, Canada and Brazil (see REST OF THE WORLD and LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS).

The US dominates our coverage though – and not just because of the ongoing glyphosate litigation (see LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS), which is taking such a toll on Bayer that the company is claiming it may have to get out of the glyphosate business altogether (see BAYER SEEKS LEGAL IMMUNITY), or even make its Monsanto subsidiary bankrupt (see BAYER’S BUSINESS CRISIS). We also focus on the US because of the desperate battle Bayer is waging at both the state and federal levels, as well as through the appeal courts – with its eyes on the Supreme Court on June 26, in its pursuit of a get-out-of-jail-free card for itself and the rest of the pesticide industry (see BAYER SEEKS LEGAL IMMUNITY).

In the midst of these bitter legal and political disputes has come the publication of the “MAHA report” by US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which clearly identifies glyphosate as a potential contributor to chronic illnesses in children. As a result, as one commentator put it, “some of the most awful agricultural vested interests”, which includes “the GMO foods lobby”, have been spitting blood. Indeed, they began pushing back hard on the glyphosate issue well before the report was published. (The report has also faced strong criticism from other quarters – see THE MAHA REPORT).

And the bad news for Bayer and other pesticide makers just keeps coming. And it involves a lot more than just glyphosate (see LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS and MORE TOXICS).

NEW VIDEOS

The deadly glyphosate cover up: How Monsanto poisoned rural America
In an excellent new 14-minute video, the US non-profit newsroom More Perfect Union explores the disturbing background to Bayer’s current mission to rewrite laws to give the company immunity from future lawsuits – all while continuing to make billions in profit from a product linked to cancer. Journalist and author Carey Gillam is among the main contributors.

Pesticides: a life ruined by glyphosate
This 8-minute Euronews video, in French with English sub-titles, together with a news article in English, features Ludovic Maugé, a former landscaper, whose cancer from using Roundup is recognised as an occupational disease. As a result he receives a modest amount monthly in compensation from Bayer-Monsanto, which manufactured the product that poisoned him. But this news report also explains the context of his illness – the failings of regulators who continue to allow glyphosate-based herbicides to stay on the market. Euronews also has a shorter video report (3:33) about Ludovic Maugé’s experience as a glyphosate victim, entitled, The impact of glyphosate on real lives, in which he comments, “The pain is constant… When I see politicians reauthorising these [glyphosate] products, I am outraged."

Glyphosate, GMOs, and growing food sustainably, featuring Chuck Benbrook
In an in-depth hour-long Back to the People podcast, Nicole Shanahan interviews the agricultural economist Chuck Benbrook, a well-known expert on pesticides and sustainable farming, about glyphosate. As well as publishing scientific papers on glyphosate, Dr Benbrook has served as an expert witness during the last several years of glyphosate litigation.

THE MAHA REPORT

MAHA report applauded for calling out chemical harms, but criticised for falling short
Exposures to pesticides and other chemicals, ultra-processed foods and over-prescription of medications are among the factors contributing to an epidemic of chronic disease in America’s children, according to a US government assessment report, issued by the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission. Summarising the report, Carey Gillam writes that it calls for a “transformation” of US food, health and “scientific systems” to address the “sickest generation in American history in terms of chronic disease”. The report blames complacency in scientific and medical institutions, corrupt federal and state policies guided “more by corporate profit than the public interest”, and US food and agricultural systems that have “embraced ultra-processed ingredients and synthetic chemicals”. The report calls out corporate influence over research, regulators and lawmakers as factors contributing to the problems. The commission’s work, led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has been under close scrutiny and generated pushback from powerful industry interests, even before it was released. Public health advocates had mixed reactions to the report, applauding key points but with many wishing the report had gone farther, and saying industry pressure likely helped suppress any meaningful policy change recommendations.

Trump-backed pesticide report led by RFK Jr. draws fire from agrichemical industry
George Kimbrell, co-executive director of the Center for Food Safety, calls the MAHA assessment report a “baby step” in the right direction and acknowledges the tone over pesticide regulations could be shifting. “Going back my entire career, 20-plus years now of doing this work, it doesn’t matter if it’s a Democratic administration or a Republican administration, they have been beholden to and done the wishes of the pesticide industry,” Kimbrell said. “So, this is a unique moment where… there’s a chance that there could be some positive change in terms of responsible oversight for these toxins.” But the report itself, Kimbrell says, “falls woefully short of providing any next steps”, as it does not call for specific regulatory changes or restrictions on pesticides used in farming, even while it highlights studies linking health disorders in humans and animals to pesticides like glyphosate and atrazine. It just says these chemicals should be further researched. Meanwhile, Trump’s campaign and presidency have received millions of dollars in donations from the world’s largest agrichemical companies, who also spend heavily on federal lobbyists, and they are pushing back hard on the concerns expressed in the report and against the policy and legal reforms needed to tackle them.

Epic battle brewing over the direction of the Trump administration
In the run up to the publication of the MAHA report, Lori Ann Burd, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, a group that has long sought a US ban on atrazine and other pesticides, told the New York Times that she sees an uneasy but potentially powerful alignment of interests in favour of better regulation of such chemicals. “There’s an epic battle brewing over the direction that the administration is going to take on toxic chemicals,” she said. “This is the movement that helped to elect Trump. But we’re also up against some of the most powerful corporate lobby groups in the country.”

MAHA or misdirection?
“The bright spot of the MAHA report,” according to food industry veteran Errol Schweizer, “is that some of the most awful agricultural vested interests, such as soy and corn grower associations, agrochemical interests and the GMO foods lobby, are pissed off by its findings. Their golden geese, such as the herbicides glyphosate and atrazine that are used across millions of acres of GMO corn and soy production, are justifiably in the MAHA crosshairs”. Schweizer adds, “For a report of this scale and visibility to be issued under a Republican Administration is unprecedented. For the Democrats… to leave this policy opening to the Trump team is bizarre, and frankly, unforgivable. Republicans have absorbed the burgeoning MAHA coalition and the report appears to be a first step to operationalize the momentum.” But, says Schweizer, the assessment report also contains a lot of misleading nationalistic rhetoric (claims like “American farmers feed the world”, etc.), and weak structural analysis of the real sources of the harms it identifies. As a result, “the overall impact feels like misdirection, making big statements one way, while the administration’s day to day actions are 180 degrees opposed”. This means – for the moment at least – the report is, “at best, just high profile virtue signalling, without policy actions and funding committed to actually doing things about the problems it articulates”.

We’ve been played: A doctor’s warning to the wellness world
Physician Amy B. Killen MD also thinks the policies of the Trump Administration are actively undermining the purported goals of the MAHA Commission. And she responded to the assessment report by saying, “You’ve been played”. She says while some wellness advocates are celebrating the report’s emphasis on removing red dye from foods and addressing the issue of environmental toxins, “something sinister is happening behind the scenes” – namely Trump's “aggressive deregulation” and “pro-Big Agriculture and pro-Big Industry policies”. These include an indefinite pause on glyphosate restrictions and delayed action on PFAS (“forever chemicals”) limits in drinking water. She also draws attention to the Trump administration’s attempt to fast-track GMO approvals with weaker safety reviews, though this has been rolled back by a court ruling. Dr Killen says people need to “Stop letting politicians weaponize your legitimate health concerns while simultaneously poisoning the environment that makes health possible”. And she concludes, “We in the wellness world need to pull our heads out of our asses and start making noise about the policies that determine whether wellness is possible.”

Don’t bank on the MAHA strategy report delivering on glyphosate
The Make Our Children Healthy Again Assessment report that came out in late May was intended to investigate the root causes of chronic illnesses in the US. The MAHA Commission is scheduled to follow up with policy recommendations, based on the assessment report, in a Make Our Children Healthy Again Strategy report in mid-August. But columnist Dave Dickey warns that though “Big Ag in general, and in particular, pesticide producers – most notably those that manufacture chlorpyrifos and glyphosate – have been freaking out” about what policy recommendations may be coming, the strategy report “won’t target glyphosate”. He saysthat’s because “Kennedy knows that if he pushes too hard on glyphosate, Big Ag and USDA will come for him and he’ll lose. Bigly”. Kennedy is so aware of this, Dickey says, that when speaking at a Senate Appropriations Committee, he made Big Ag a promise: “One hundred percent of corn in this country relies on glyphosate. We are not going to do anything to jeopardise that business model.”

Report criticised for citing studies that don’t exist
Seven of the cited sources in the MAHA assessment report don’t appear to exist, possibly because AI was used to generate some of the citations. The food policy expert Marion Nestle said, “Nobody has ever accused RFK Jr. of academic rigour… The speed (of the MAHA report) suggests that it could not have been vetted carefully and must have been whisked through standard clearance procedures. The citation problem suggests a reliance on AI.” This has led to headlines like The MAHA Report: Make America Hallucinate Again. (See also a more positive assessment by Marion Nestle of the main content of the report.)

Saying one thing and doing another
NPR reports on how as the Trump administration promotes its “Make America Healthy Again” agenda to curb chronic disease by reducing toxic exposures, it is simultaneously cutting the research, staff, and regulations needed to do so. The public may be left with messaging about the dangers of toxic chemicals but even less protection from them.

The looming food fight over pesticides in the Republican Party
American conservative media outlet The Daily Wire says the MAHA report needs to be seen in the context of a heated battle already underway within the Republican Party (GOP). It says Republican Blake Bassham of Georgia, for example, is not pleased with Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, who recently signed legislation to shield Bayer (see BAYER SEEKS LEGAL IMMUNITY below). Bassham says, “Governor Kemp just signed a liability shield for chemical giants – quietly, behind closed doors, no cameras, no crowds. Why? Because they know it’s crony politics at its worst. Courts have found real people were harmed, and no amount of lobbyist dinners will erase that. The swamp may have won this round, but the grassroots, the MAHA moms, and freedom-loving Georgians won’t forget who sold them out”. Bassham says there is a clear line emerging between who’s really on the MAHA train and “who’s still riding with the corporate cronies of the old GOP”.

BAYER’S BUSINESS CRISIS

Top Bayer investors demand plan to end long-running crisis
Prominent German investors recently voiced exasperation over Bayer’s recurring struggles, demanding a clearer path out of the conglomerate’s crises. Deka Investment’s Ingo Speich characterized the current results of Chief Executive Officer Bill Anderson’s two-year tenure at Bayer as “disastrous”, pointing to the falling stock price, stubbornly high debt levels, and US legal problems. Once an icon of German industry, Bayer is now “at a strategic dead end,” Speich said. Since the takeover of Monsanto, other Bayer investors have likened the company to a pile of broken glass, a giant-turned-dwarf, and a burning house.

Bayer warns of lower earnings
Bayer guided for lower earnings this year as it continues to work through a turnaround plan. The company posted a fourth-quarter net loss of 335 million euros compared with a profit of 1.34 billion euros in the same quarter the previous year.

Bayer’s costly experiment fails to give desired results
In a bold move to restore $540 million in cost savings, Bayer CEO Bill Anderson cut out most of the company’s management roles last year. In March 2024, the company slashed half its executive positions and let go another 2,000 employees in the first quarter of this year. Overall, Bayer has got rid of some 11,000 employees – almost 10% of its workforce – since first kicking off the reorganisation initiative. But the experiment has not yielded the intended results. Bayer’s market cap has fallen more than 44% this year. The stock price hit a 20-year low last November. Bayer is still reeling from the 2018 acquisition of Monsanto, which at the time it claimedwould lead to thousands of new jobs. So far, Monsanto is a $66 billion albatross that has failed to fly.

Bayer bankruptcy threats
A Wall Street Journal article says Bayer is thinking about a possible bankruptcy strategy for its Monsanto subsidiary in order to end the expensive legal disputes over glyphosate . The article says Bayer intends to settle the wave of US lawsuits with a settlement in a court in the state of Missouri, where most of the cases are pending, but if that fails, it would protect itself from claims by filing for bankruptcy under US law (Chapter 11). Brigitte Hincha-Weisel of the Coordination Against Bayer Dangers told the German newspaper Taz that if that happened, “It would be outrageous. Bayer is threatening partial insolvency, which would leave glyphosate victims almost empty-handed, in order to achieve the cheapest possible solution. The question is whether the courts will go along with it.” This is not the first time that a bankruptcy strategy has been floated. There was previous mention of one of the “Texas Two-Step” type bankruptcies that Johnson & Johnson has been pursuing, though without much success because it was so obviously acting in bad faith. But the WSJ says Bayer is exploring as one of its options a more traditional approach that would place Monsanto’s US business directly into Chapter 11.

Prospect of a Monsanto bankruptcy ups Bayer’s share price
It says something about how Bayer’s shareholders regard Monsanto that on hearing it might be declared bankrupt, Bayer’s shares shot up. Remember, Monsanto is a company Bayer paid $66 billion to acquire, saying, “We are as excited as we have ever been about the [merger], and there are absolutely no regrets.”

Is Bayer really on the ropes?
Despite all the problems besetting Bayer, how seriously should we take the Roundup maker’s claims of being “on the ropes”? In GMWatch’s view, we need to bear in mind that Bayer is almost certainly promoting stories of putting Monsanto into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and/or of withdrawing Roundup from the US market, to put pressure:
* on plaintiffs to settle (as a Chapter 11 move would push all current and future Roundup lawsuits into the bankruptcy system), forcing a discount on payouts
* on lawmakers to pass “Cancer Gag Acts” (for more on that see BAYER SEEKS LEGAL IMMUNITY)
* on Roundup-reliant farmers to rally to its support.
It would also signal to Bayer’s disgruntled shareholders that it’s pursuing all possible routes out of the hugely expensive legal mess that it’s currently mired in.

LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS

Health Canada ordered to reassess glyphosate risks, as new evidence of health harms to children from glyphosate surfaces
In a significant victory in the fight against toxics, environmental and health groups in Canada have successfully challenged the federal government’s renewal of a glyphosate product in court. In a February 2025 ruling, the Federal Court found that Health Canada’s 2022 decision to re-approve the glyphosate-based herbicide “Mad Dog Plus” was not substantiated by scientific assessment. This is because the “acceptable risk” of glyphosate was last assessed by Health Canada in 2017, and much new science on the risks has come out since. The court set aside Health Canada’s re-approval of the product and has given the department six months to assess the latest science.

New Zealand’s EPA faces High Court challenge over glyphosate
The Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) is challenging New Zealand's Environmental Protection Authority’s refusal to reassess glyphosate and glyphosate-based substances this week in the High Court. The ELI point out that the EPA has never conducted a full risk assessment of glyphosate, even though a large amount of scientific evidence as to its risks has emerged since it was first introduced to New Zealand 50 years ago. They also point out that over 90 glyphosate-based formulas have subsequently been “grandfathered” through New Zealand’s regulatory system on the basis of glyphosate’s original 1970s approval, despite the EPA not even having a record of that original approval: “They don't have a copy of that. They don't know what it is.”

French parents sue Bayer over glyphosate birth defects in their son
Bayer was in court in eastern France on 3 April to face accusations by a French family that Bayer’s glyphosate-based herbicide caused birth defects in their son. The company has paid out billions in compensation for cancer-related cases, but this is the first case to connect the chemical with birth defects. Theo Grataloup, 17, who was born with severe abnormalities of the oesophagus and larynx, said he represents all those with birth defects. Grataloup said the case could “set a legal precedent” and “allow other victims to go to court much quicker”.

Trial set for US beekeeper’s lawsuit against Bayer and BASF for dicamba damage
A trial date has finally been set for Arkansas beekeeper Richard Coy, who is suing Bayer and BASF over the impact of dicamba damage on his bees and his resulting loss of income. Coy’s honey farm business was driven out of Arkansas by the level of dicamba damage. The lawsuit complains Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) and BASF developed and marketed GMO dicamba-resistant crops while intentionally downplaying the dangers dicamba posed to non-resistant crops and other plant life, including native plants, flowers, bushes, vines, and other flowering plants suitable for bee foraging.

Bayer hit with another massive verdict over Roundup cancer claims
In March a Georgia jury ordered Bayer to pay $2.1 billion to a man who says Roundup caused his cancer, marking one of the largest blows yet in the ongoing legal war over the weedkiller’s safety. The jury awarded $65 million in compensatory damages and $2 billion in punitive damages to John Barnes, who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after using Roundup.

Bayer’s Monsanto loses appeal of $611M Roundup verdict in Missouri
In late May a Missouri court upheld a $611 million verdict awarded to three people who sued Bayer alleging that Roundup caused their cancer, a ruling the company says it will further appeal. The three-judge panel of the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District rejected all seven points of appeal filed by Bayer, including its reliance on EPA findings, and affirmed the jury’s conclusion that Roundup’s glyphosate-based formula contributed to cancer in multiple plaintiffs. It also called out the company for its handling of glyphosate. “Monsanto’s awareness of studies demonstrating the possibility of a causal relationship between glyphosate and cancer, particularly NHL [non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma], and then its decision to double down on its defence of Roundup in lieu of changing the product’s formulation or adding a warning label, demonstrates, at best, Monsanto’s indifference to or reckless disregard of the health of its customers,” the court said. “Given the reprehensibility of Monsanto's misconduct as well as the goal to deter Monsanto from continuing its strategy of pursuing profit at the expense of the health of Roundup users, a nine-to-one ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages was appropriate.”

Monsanto loses appeal over $175M Roundup cancer verdict
In another dramatic legal showdown in May that underscored the high-stakes war over product liability and federal oversight, Monsanto failed to overturn a $175 million jury verdict awarded to a Pennsylvania man who linked his cancer to the weedkiller Roundup. The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the jury’s award to Ernest Caranci and his wife was justifiable and constitutionally sound. The verdict struck a decisive blow against Monsanto’s long-standing legal strategy: arguing that state-level “failure to warn” claims should be pre-empted by federal law.

Court upholds $1.2 million verdict in Roundup trial that ruled weedkiller caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
In February a Missouri appeals court rejected Monsanto’s bid to overturn a $1.2 million verdict in a Roundup lawsuit, in which a jury found the controversial weedkiller caused a Missouri man to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Monsanto argued on appeal that the failure to warn claims should be pre-empted by federal law, indicating it could not change the warning labels on Roundup without approval from the EPA. But in its opinion, the appeals court dismissed Monsanto’s arguments, pointing out that though Monsanto claimed that federal law didn’t allow it to attach a warning label: “The record contains no evidence that Monsanto either informed the EPA of the justifications for a change to its warning label or that the EPA has informed Monsanto it would not approve such a warning, and Monsanto does not specifically make these arguments on appeal.”

Monsanto ends Roundup cancer case with midtrial settlement
In mid-June, Bayer called a halt to its latest Roundup-cancer courtroom battle, settling a Missouri case after four weeks of testimony and just as the trial was coming to a close. It is among many similar cases that Bayer has settled since purchasing Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018. Settlements avoid more bad headlines hitting the share price, as details are kept confidential. During the trial, jurors heard evidence that Monsanto long had knowledge of research showing a connection between glyphosate and cancer, but worked to hide the evidence rather than warning its customers.

Proceeds from Bayer-Monsanto settlement for false advertising go to pollinator conservation
In 2023 New York Attorney General Letitia James secured a $6.9 million settlement in a false advertising case that she had brought against Bayer CropScience and Monsanto for repeatedly making false claims that Roundup is safe and non-toxic. Now 35 New York state organisations will receive funding from that settlement to support land restoration, education, and community science projects that foster pollinator conservation.

Lawyer demands records of Bayer’s Roundup “propaganda” campaign in Missouri
Bayer is improperly using a court order to hide details of a “propaganda” campaign targeting Missouri lawmakers and potential jurors, an emergency motion to lift the confidentiality cloak claims. In a case pending in Cole County Circuit Court, attorney Matt Clement is arguing that 46 “public relations” documents designated as confidential by Bayer’s attorneys contain no proprietary information. Instead, Clement wrote, the records – included among 20,000 delivered under discovery – detail the methods Bayer has used to influence opinion, including radio, television and print ads. “Cole County has been especially inundated with Monsanto’s propaganda,” Clement wrote in the motion seeking to unseal the records.

Bayer faces billions in payouts for decades-old toxic mess
Bayer’s Monsanto unit stopped making toxic PCBs a half century ago, but the legal fallout lingers. At the beginning of this year Bayer was hit with a $100 million verdict blaming it for students and faculty at a Seattle-area public school being sickened by exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, contained in ageing fluorescent-light fixtures. The company faces billions of dollars in exposure from a growing number of lawsuits over PCB products filed by state and local governments, school districts and individuals.

Bayer fights plaintiffs’ billion-dollar ask in latest PCB trial
Nearly two dozen people who say they were poisoned by Monsanto-made chemicals asked a Washington state jury on 16 June for a damages award of $1.1 billion to $3.3 billion. Monsanto’s parent company, Bayer, is contesting their request. Bayer has already agreed to pay almost $2 billion in settlements in PCB cases brought by states, cities and counties.

BAYER SEEKS LEGAL IMMUNITY

Bayer tells US politicians it could halt Roundup weedkiller sales over legal risks if they don’t give it legal immunity
Bayer has told US politicians it could stop selling the popular Roundup weedkiller unless they can strengthen legal protection against product liability litigation, according to a financial analyst and a person close to the matter. The German company has said plaintiffs should not be able to take Bayer to court given that the federal US Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly ruled the product safe to use.

Why Bayer’s threat is empty
Bayer’s threat to stop selling Roundup is clearly intended to scare farmers and lawmakers but, as GMWatch commented on X, “Roundup went off patent in 2000 and the National Pesticide Information Center says there are currently 750+ pesticides available containing glyphosate. So farmers could still poison their fields without needing to resort to Roundup – even if Bayer flees the scene.” Bayer’s counter to this is that they’re making glyphosate in the US (phosphate mining in Idaho, production in Missouri and elsewhere), whereas much of the generic glyphosate is produced in China, so suggestions have been raised – via a leafleting campaign of shadowy origin targeting lawmakers – of the Chinese Communist Party taking over essential US farming inputs. The real aim of this campaign is to persuade Republicans to support legislation to shield Bayer from lawsuits from cancer sufferers.

Trump’s EPA moves to block state pesticide labels that warn of cancer risks
Trump’s EPA is advancing a proposal, originally put forward by a number of Republican state Attorney Generals, to block states from warning consumers about herbicides and other agricultural products in their food. Among the substances that could now go undisclosed is glyphosate, which studies have linked to cancer and that Trump’s own health secretary has called a “poison”. But the new measure would declare that any label citing scientific findings not acknowledged by Trump’s EPA would “constitute misbranding”. Bayer has also helped draft a section of the federal Farm Bill aimed at limiting pesticide liability, according to a report last year in the Washington Post.

Liability shields for pesticide companies facing stiff opposition
The Modern Ag Alliance, spearheaded by Bayer, has been pouring money into US states in an effort to gain immunity to lawsuits. The good news is that while Bayer and the Modern Ag Alliance have poured money into advertising and a wave of lobbyists, grassroots efforts have mostly foiled what they thought were going to be easy wins. While this battle is not yet over for the year (there is still activity in North Carolina, Ohio and at the federal level), only Georgia and North Dakota have passed such laws. Here’s PAN North America’s summary of the state of play elsewhere:
• Introduced and reassigned to committee in the Senate: North Carolina
• Lobbyists looking to introduce language into budget bill: Ohio
• Introduced but failed to be assigned to committee: Idaho, Montana
• Assigned to committee, but failed to advance: Mississippi, Wyoming
• Removed by bill’s sponsors: Florida
• Deferred in committee until the 2026 session: Tennessee
• Failed to pass both arms of legislature: Missouri and Iowa.

As bids for legal immunity fail at the state level, Bayer looks to Supreme Court
The US Supreme Court at its June 26 conference is scheduled to consider Bayer’s request for a high court ruling on a key legal question that could dramatically impact the ongoing Roundup litigation. Bayer’s petition asserts that federal law pre-empts state laws that allow “failure-to warn” claims, which are at the heart of the Roundup lawsuits. Bayer claims that because the US EPA does not require a cancer warning on labels of its glyphosate-based products, the company cannot add such a warning, and thus cannot be sued for failing to warn customers. Most but not all US appeal courts have rejected this argument, so Bayer is asking Supreme Court to provide definitive guidance to state and federal courts. Alongside its efforts to get a favourable court ruling on the issue of pre-emption, Bayer has been lobbying state lawmakers across the country to pass pre-emption legislation to protect the company and other pesticide makers from litigation going forward.

Roundup pesticide debate continues following failure of Bayer-backed bill in Missouri
The Roundup pesticide debate continues following the failure in Missouri of the Bayer-backed bill, which would prevent people who blame the herbicide for causing their cancer from suing the pesticide companies. Rep. Adrian Plank opposed the bill, calling it “purchased policy”. Plank said Bayer’s push to block lawsuits is driven by greed and made possible by bought politicians. Plank said he has no doubt the bill will come up again next year. “I’m sure of it. You’ve got to remember the bill sponsor is on the board of Missouri Soy, and that’s what they want. They’re going to pander to the people who give them a bunch of money, and that’s Monsanto-Bayer.”

No impunity for agrochemical corporations: Open Letter to Bayer’s shareholders
Before the Bayer annual shareholders meeting (AGM) on 25 April 2025, over 100 organisations from the EU, US and around the world – including GMWatch – signed an Open Letter to Bayer’s shareholders. The organisations – representing consumers, farmers, academics, human rights and environment defenders – called on them to stop Bayer’s intense lobby campaign taking place across the US, aiming to prevent citizens from going to court after suffering health damage after using Roundup or any other harmful pesticide.

REST OF THE WORLD

UK: Glyphosate use extended for further year
Glyphosate use has been extended to the end of 2026 in Britain, after the Glyphosate Renewal Group (GRG) provided the UK Health and Safety Executive with a dossier to support their application to renew the approval of glyphosate. Bayer is the CRG’s “lead member” and their application will be considered during that period.

New Zealand: Don’t let the government poison your porridge
New Zealanders’ toast and porridge might soon have an unwelcome new ingredient. The government has recently announced it wants to allow 100 times more glyphosate residues – the main chemical in Roundup – on grains. Sign the open letter to let the Government know what you think of their idea.

Canada: Monocultures, glyphosate fanning flames of forest fires
One practice contributing to forest fires is the widespread use of glyphosate, a herbicide sprayed to kill undergrowth, writes horticulturist Monika Rekola. The logic seems sound: clearing out the underbrush reduces the amount of fuel on the forest floor. But here’s the kicker – glyphosate also kills native plants that help retain moisture in the soil. What’s left is a dry, barren landscape, practically begging for a spark.

Brazil: Communities victimised by pesticides in Maranhão discuss their plight
The Rural Workers’ Union for the municipality of São Mateus, in Maranhão, Brazil, brought together more than 100 family farmers affected by the rain of poison caused by aerial spraying in the region. After an 11-year ban, the Federal Court authorised the aerial spraying of glyphosate by planes and drones. Glyphosate applied to GM glyphosate-tolerant soy is now being sprayed directly onto those who live and produce food in the countryside, sickening the population. The results include crops being contaminated or destroyed, fish dying in the rivers, and children’s health suffering.

MORE TOXICS

France: Alarm as bill could allow the return of banned pesticides
A proposed law that would weaken the authority of ANSES, the country’s health and environmental safety watchdog, and potentially reauthorise banned pesticides is drawing strong opposition. The far-right Republican Senator Laurent Duplomb is behind the bill, which seeks to create an agricultural advisory board, made up of representatives of agricultural interests including the pesticide industry, with power to reauthorise banned pesticides, including neonicotinoids. ANSES Director General Benoît Vallet has threatened to resign if the bill becomes law, calling it a direct threat to the integrity of scientific oversight in pesticide regulation.

France: 1,200 French doctors and scientists say pesticides bill must not pass
In an open letter to France’s ministers of agriculture, health, and the environment, hundreds of French doctors and scientists, supported by several medical organizations, have expressed their strong opposition to the provisions of the Duplomb bill (see item above). The letter’s signatories include experts in toxicology, ecotoxicology and agronomy. They say regulation needs strengthening, not weakening, because “farmers, local residents and citizens no longer want to be used as guinea pigs”. They point out that current risk assessments are “dependent on data from manufacturers; that scientific literature “is too often marginalised” in approval processes; and that regulatory tests “do not explore all potential risks” such as, for instance, the endocrine disrupting properties of pesticides. Regulators also fail to assess the risks associated with chronic exposure to pesticides as actually used, or the potential impact of the “cocktail effect” – the mixtures of synthetic chemicals disseminated in the environment and “found in tap water, mineral waters, and our food”. The prospect of any return of banned neonicotinoids has also led to protest rallies in France by beekeepers. And parents of children harmed by pesticides have also spoken out publicly against the Duplomb bill, which is due to be voted on 30 June.

US: Catastrophic losses of bees (video)
US beekeepers discuss the catastrophic losses happening in the commercial beekeeping industry. It’s estimated the most recent winter loss rates are averaging as high as 70%-80% industry wide. They finger pesticides as a key factor.

US: Dicamba is a disaster but it cannot be sprayed on GM crops this year
Patsy Hopper dreamed of a home in the country with a garden and trees. What she didn’t count on were the herbicides that would drift in from the farmland around her, killing vegetables in her garden and wild flowers in the ditches and curling the leaves of the trees she had planted. “I have a lot of trees dying,” said Hopper. “I don’t think they’ll survive.” Hopper isn’t alone. A weedkiller called dicamba, which is used in growing GM crops such as soybeans and cotton, has become notorious for inflicting widespread damage beyond the fields where it is sprayed. Dicamba drift has harmed other farmers’ crops, as well as vegetable gardens, orchards, and natural vegetation. The damage has spawned lawsuits and hard feelings in rural communities. It even led to the killing of an Arkansas farmer. Last year a US court banned the use of the dicamba spraying on growing crops. The 2025 growing season is the first since 2016 without legal access to over-the-top versions of dicamba.

US: Butterfly populations plummet – pesticides are a culprit
Butterfly populations in the US are plummeting, with some of the rarest facing near-total collapse, a new study has found. Researchers say studies show pesticide exposure, particularly neonicotinoids, play a particularly lethal role. People are encouraged to plant native milkweed to help monarch caterpillars, but a study in the Central Valley of California found every collected sample was contaminated with pesticides – even when landowners said they didn’t use them, suggesting drift or plants being treated prior to purchase.

Canada: Are neonics critical to all crops? Research says no
In 2018, Louis Robert, an agronomist in Quebec, was fired after releasing research about the limited effectiveness of neonicotinoid pesticides. After a year of asking his superiors at the Ministry of Agriculture to release the report, Robert sent the unpublished research to Radio Canada. The study found that neonicotinoid seed treatments produced no significant difference in crop yields for corn and soybeans. Shortly after he released the report to the press, he was summoned to his office. “My boss was there, and on the video was his boss in Quebec City, and they handed me a letter signed by my ministry,” Robert said. “I was suspended from the department.” The study is here.

US: Berkeley’s campus is 95% organically managed without herbicides
UC Berkeley manages 95% of its campus organically and works with students to hold regular weeding days where students help pull weeds in areas that otherwise would have been sprayed with herbicide.

Details: Published: 23 June 2025

Wednesday 2 July | 15:00–17:00 CEST | Online workshop from Testbiotech

Details: Published: 23 June 2025

Save Our Seeds and GMWatch explore the fate of the bold claims made for agricultural GMOs

Details: Published: 18 June 2025

“In Symbiosis” unveils the driving forces behind a broken food system and puts forward a path to building true resilience

Details: Published: 17 June 2025

Glyphosate is the most widely – and the most heavily – used pesticide in the world, including on at least 80% of all GM crops. This scale of use, which is likely to skyrocket still further given the current drive to deregulate GMOs, is leading to widespread human exposure, including via contaminated food, water and air. This is confirmed by urine samples, with glyphosate showing up even in urban children far from where glyphosate is most heavily applied. All of which makes glyphosate’s regulation of planetary importance.

Yet when the European Union re-approved glyphosate use for a further ten years at the end of 2023, it ignored not just the concerns of the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), but the warnings of many independent scientists who consider glyphosate a serious threat to human and animal health, not to mention global biodiversity. And among those raising the alarm were a group of researchers who had embarked on an extensive long-term cancer study that was already throwing up disturbing results in animals exposed to even low doses of glyphosate.

The final results of that study have now been published, making it still harder for regulators to ignore its finding that glyphosate and glyphosate-based weedkillers cause multiple types of cancer, not least leukaemia, at doses that regulators claim are safe. The results also show that the other ingredients in pesticides containing glyphosate “may increase the risk of cancer, particularly in the case of leukaemia” still further.

The first section of our Review focuses in on this critically important study and the impact of its publication. But the bad news for glyphosate defenders doesn’t stop with this groundbreaking study. That’s because our second section (OTHER RECENT FINDINGS) shows how exposure to realistic levels of glyphosate herbicides also seems to lead to babies being born earlier and underweight, gut microbiome dysfunction, kidney injury in children, a liver disease epidemic, and increased all-cause deaths. Meanwhile, the primary metabolite of glyphosate has been found at very high levels in menstrual products, like tampons, that provide a perfect conduit for direct entry to women’s bloodstreams, so bypassing the body’s detoxification systems.

These extremely worrying findings come at the same time as Bayer is busy campaigning in the US for legal immunity for itself and other pesticide manufacturers – a campaign we will be looking at in detail in our next Review, which zeroes in on the bitter political and legal battles currently being waged over glyphosate.

GLYPHOSATE-CANCER LINK FURTHER STRENGTHENED BY GROUNDBREAKING STUDY

International study reveals glyphosate weedkillers cause multiple types of cancer
A just-published comprehensive two-year-long carcinogenicity study on the world’s most widely used herbicide, glyphosate, involving 27 co-authors from multiple institutions in Europe and the US, has found that low doses of the weedkiller cause multiple types of cancer in rats. In this long-term study on over 1000 rats, glyphosate alone and two commercial glyphosate-based formulations were administered to rats beginning in prenatal life, at doses of 0.5, 5, and 50 mg/kg body weight/day for 2 years. These doses are currently considered safe by regulatory agencies. In all groups of animals given these small daily doses of the herbicide, the researchers write, “we observed a statistically significant dose-dependent increase in the tendency to develop benign or malignant tumours in several tissues”. Most of the observed cancers are rare in Sprague-Dawley rats, with 40% of leukaemia deaths in treated groups occurring in early life. Increased early deaths were also observed for other solid tumours. The leukaemia findings are especially strong and may provide important support for plaintiffs in court cases who allege that exposure to Roundup caused their Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, another type of blood cancer. Glyphosate is used on over 80% of GM crops.

Evidence was ignored in EU reapproval
Despite early warnings of their cancer findings being shared with EU authorities by the Ramazzini Institute overseeing the glyphosate study, this critical evidence was ignored during glyphosate’s reapproval process, resulting in its reapproval for a further ten years. PAN Europe warns that these findings directly contradict EU risk assessors’ conclusions and raise serious concerns about the adequacy of current safety standards and compliance with EU law. Dr Angeliki Lysimachou, head of science and policy at PAN Europe says, “This peer-reviewed publication removes any excuse for inaction. Regulators knowingly excluded critical evidence from the risk assessment. Glyphosate clearly fails to meet the safety requirements of EU law.”

Dutch farmers’ union says if findings are correct, glyphosate should be withdrawn immediately
Responding to the glyphosate study, the main Dutch farmers union, LTO Netherlands, urged a quick assessment by the independent scientific institutes Ctgb (Dutch Board for the Authorisation of Plant Protection Products and Biocides) and EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). “Scientific insights should always be leading in the authorisation of plant protection products,” the advocacy group believes. “Should their analysis show that the research results are correct and there is actually an increased risk of cancer for humans and animals, it is crystal clear to us that the authorisation of glyphosate should be withdrawn with immediate effect,” LTO argues. According to LTO, protecting public health and preventing human suffering must always come first. “On the other hand, we also call for no hasty conclusions to be drawn ahead of the judgement of the scientific institutes appointed to that end.”

Independent scientists praise the new cancer study
Dutch scientists not involved in the newly published glyphosate study have called it “groundbreaking and alarming”, while French researchers called it “well-crafted”. It shows “a clear pattern, very consistent,” says Ad Ragas, professor of risk assessment of chemical substances at Radboud University, a leading university in the Netherlands. Ragas was not involved in the study but confirmed that it was done meticulously. The French toxicologist Laurence Huc, research director at the French National Institute for Agricultural, Food and Environmental Research (INRAE), who was also not involved in the research, praised “a well-designed study with impressive statistical power, which highlights several characteristics of glyphosate toxicity”. She told Le Monde that its results obtained on rodents in the laboratory “are consistent with the available epidemiological studies [on humans]” that indicate a link between occupational exposure to glyphosate and certain blood diseases, notably lymphomas and myelomas. The German epidemiologist Kurt Straif, former head of the carcinogen classification program at the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” in March 2015, told Le Monde that the new study makes IARC’s conclusion that available animal studies constituted “sufficient evidence” of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity in animals “even stronger”. He also said the finding of an increase in leukaemia at a relatively young age in rodents exposed to very low doses during pregnancy “adds additional concerns” to those already raised by IARC.

ECHA risk assessment expert commends the study
Leading toxicologist Alberto Mantovani, a member of the ECHA (European Chemicals Agency) Risk Assessment Committee, commended the study on his LinkedIn page as a “new and robust multi-centre study” which “uses a protocol encompassing pre- and post-natal development and fulfils the need for sound experimental evidence. The results highlight the tumorigenic potential of glyphosate and glyphosate-based products at dose levels considered as ‘safe’. This new evidence has to be carefully considered by the regulatory authorities globally.” His positive review has attracted a few desperate attempts to discredit the study by various defenders of glyphosate in the comments thread, but it’s clear they are floundering.

Glyphosate’s permitted exposure level must be lowered at least 100-fold – expert
Co-author of the glyphosate study Prof Michael Antoniou of King’s College London commented on the mechanisms by which glyphosate herbicides cause cancer: “Previous work in laboratory rats conducted by my own group in collaboration with the Ramazzini Institute has shown that exposure to glyphosate herbicides results in DNA damage, which appears to be caused by oxidative stress. Given that DNA damage is a major risk factor in cancer formation, I am not surprised with the finding in the Global Glyphosate Study that long-term exposure to glyphosate and commercial glyphosate herbicide formulations, even at low levels that government regulators stipulate as perfectly safe, results in a wide range of different cancers, including leukaemia. When one considers that glyphosate herbicide exposure has also been found to be associated with oxidative stress and leukaemia in human populations, the findings of the Global Glyphosate Study take on even greater significance. These observations suggest that if glyphosate is not outright banned, the permitted daily exposure level needs to be lowered, in my view by at least 100-fold.” (No link in header)

Bayer attacks the new study
Bayer responded to the new glyphosate study by attacking it. It claimed the study exhibits “significant methodological deficiencies”. But according to the German newspaper Taz, when it asked Bayer to be more specific about the study’s failings, “the company did not provide any justification for this accusation”. However, Taz says, “probably in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the study’s authors, the Leverkusen-based company criticised the Ramazzini Institute for having ‘made misleading claims about the safety of various products’ in the past”. Bayer said that some studies the institute had conducted on other substances had not been accepted by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But Daniele Mandrioli, director of the institute's cancer research centre, told Taz that “the substances identified as carcinogenic in our laboratories sooner or later (sometimes decades later) turned out to be carcinogenic to humans, for example vinyl chloride, benzene, formaldehyde, and asbestos”. He said in the institute’s 50-year history, its studies on more than 200 chemical compounds had been “routinely used worldwide for hazard and risk assessment”.

OTHER RECENT FINDINGS

Prof Michael Antoniou’s inaugural lecture on glyphosate available online
Michael Antoniou’s inaugural lecture as professor of molecular genetics and toxicology at King’s College London is now available online. It’s called “Glyphosate herbicides: safer than table salt or deceptively toxic?” Using cutting-edge molecular profiling methods, Antoniou’s group has shown that exposure to realistic levels of glyphosate herbicides can cause gut microbiome dysfunction, compromised gut integrity, and fatty liver disease – a modern epidemic. Their work also shows that the daily intake levels of glyphosate permitted by regulators need to be drastically lowered to better protect public health.

Glyphosate-based weedkillers may be harming infants
Babies in rural counties of the US that liberally use glyphosate-based weedkillers are born earlier and underweight, a study finds. These changes could result in learning disabilities and an increased risk of infection, researchers reported, resulting in more than $1 billion in health care costs nationwide each year. For the most vulnerable infants, in historically disadvantaged groups, the effect was significantly greater. Low birthweight is an important predictor of health problems, such as delayed cognitive development, and raises the risk of infection and diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The study links increase in glyphosate exposure to the rollout of GM glyphosate-tolerant seeds. See also Beyond Pesticides' article on the study.

Glyphosate may be linked to liver disease epidemic, study warns

Glyphosate herbicide exposure may significantly raise the risk of an increasingly common chronic liver disease – metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) – even at low exposure levels, according to a new review of more than 40 scientific studies published over the past 17 years. MASLD is a serious type of fatty liver disease. It’s another name for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). See also this article on a study showing that glyphosate herbicide exposure causes NAFLD.

Higher urinary glyphosate levels linked to all-cause deaths
Higher urinary glyphosate may be associated with more all-cause death, a new study by Chinese scientists finds. The correlation is more pronounced in females. Additionally, glyphosate may have a higher effect on cancer mortality in patients without hypertension.

Glyphosate exposure increases early kidney injury biomarker in children
Previous studies have associated glyphosate exposure with both acute and chronic kidney damage. A newly published study by Mexican researchers focuses on glyphosate’s potential renal impact on children by looking at a specific biomarker – kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1) – used in the diagnosis and detection of early kidney damage. They looked for glyphosate in urine samples from urban children and found higher levels of the kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1) in individuals with higher levels of glyphosate exposure. KIM-1 concentration rose by 52% on average per unit increase in glyphosate. Glyphosate exposure accounted for about 51% of KIM-1 variability, linking exposure to early kidney changes. The researchers say these signs of pediatric kidney injury “underscore the importance of monitoring glyphosate exposure and its potential renal impact in children”.

Hypothesis: Glyphosate-based herbicides can increase risk of blood cancers through extended persistence in bone
Glyphosate levels detected in the urine of herbicide applicators and the public are relatively stable across space (urban vs rural) and time (weed spray season, not spray season). A scientific paper explores a novel two-part hypothesis: first, the likely reason for the lack of variability in glyphosate levels in urine is that glyphosate stored in bone is excreted gradually over days to weeks, and augments the stable and modest levels of dietary exposure to glyphosate; and second, the prolonged systemic movement of glyphosate into bone marrow and bone extends contact between glyphosate and blood-producing stem cells, increasing the risk of glyphosate-induced breaks and rearrangements in the DNA in these cells, potentially giving rise to blood cancers.

Glyphosate found at very high levels in menstrual products in the UK
AMPA, the main metabolite of glyphosate, has been found in menstrual products at levels 40 times higher than the legal limit for drinking water, according to a report by Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK), Women’s Environmental Network and Pesticide Collaboration. This is concerning, according to the authors, because chemicals absorbed through the vagina directly enter the bloodstream, bypassing the body’s detoxification systems. Josie Cohen, interim director at PAN UK, said: “We were genuinely shocked to find glyphosate in tampons sitting on UK shelves. This harmful chemical is already impossible to avoid since it’s sprayed by councils in streets and parks and contaminates much of our food and water due to its overuse in farming. We urgently need to reduce our overall toxic load and shouldn’t have to worry about glyphosate and other highly hazardous pesticides in our period products. This is a blatant gap in health and safety regulation that the government urgently needs to address.” If you’re in the UK, take action to keep pesticides out of period products.

Details: Published: 11 June 2025

Welcome to our latest Review, which covers the important news on “new GMOs”. Our first news item below, about Norway, shows that GMO regulations can be revised and “modernised” without fatally weakening them – something that England has already done and that the EU Commission and Council are trying to do. We have a section on England’s GMO deregulation (DEREGULATION: ENGLAND), as well as the New Zealand government’s attempt to follow suit (NEW ZEALAND DEREGULATION PROPOSAL) and India’s rash release of two gene-edited rice varieties, which has met with much high-level and grassroots opposition and is plagued by patent issues (INDIA: GENE-EDITED RICE).
The governmental deregulation moves around the globe – propelled by breathless sustainability claims and hype surrounding new GM techniques (see GENE EDITING HYPE) – contrast starkly with the underwhelming reality of “new GMOs”, as revealed in GENE EDITING PROBLEMS AND FAILURES.
Finally, don’t miss our gene editing resource, which includes some excellent podcasts.

NORWAY: REVISION OF GMO REGULATION

Norway’s Parliament revises GMO law, retains precautionary stance

On 26 May the Parliament in Norway adopted some changes in the GMO regulation – and the result, according to Aina Bartmann, CEO of the GMO Network Norway (pictured above), is largely positive for those concerned about the effects of GMOs on public health and the environment. GMO Network Norway said it was convinced that a “modernisation” of the Gene Technology act was necessary. It added that the agreed changes “stimulate research and innovation, while at the same time taking into account health and the environment. Requirements on sustainability, ethics and benefit for the society are also retained.” GMO Network Norway continued, “It is also of fundamental importance that consumers and producers retain the right and opportunity to choose GMO-free alternatives. The decision in the Parliament is in line with the GMO Network’s most important input to new GMO regulation. The main principle in the law is that all GMOs, including gene-edited organisms, must be processed on a case-by-case basis. This means independent risk assessment, traceability and labelling for all GMOs.”

GENE EDITING PROBLEMS AND FAILURES

New report shows dismal market reality of new GMOs

The European Non-GMO Industry Association (ENGA) and the Non-GMO Project, North America’s leading GMO labelling organisation, have released a joint report shedding light on the market reality of new GMOs. Despite the hype and the political pressure to deregulate these genetically engineered crops, the report finds that only three new GMOs are currently cultivated and not a single crop has contributed to sustainability goals. The report’s key finding is clear: those in the food industry wishing to produce without GMOs still can - and should - continue to do so. There is no flood of New GMOs on the global market. Only three new GMOs are currently in cultivation: two maize plants, grown in the USA which are insect and herbicide resistant and a tomato, with increased GABA content intended to lower blood pressure, cultivated in Japan. 49 new GMO crops are currently in development and two of the earliest examples have already been withdrawn due to commercial failure.

UK: Gene-edited low acrylamide wheat hits roadblock

Rothamsted Research’s GM gene-edited low acrylamide wheat has hit problems. An article in Euro News reports that the researchers are having trouble removing foreign DNA from the wheat – a step that they deem important to enable the wheat to evade GMO regulations, including risk assessment, traceability requirements, and GMO labelling, in different regions of the world. The development exposes the fakery of widespread claims that gene-edited products don’t contain foreign DNA – not to mention the other claims that gene editing can quickly bring important products to market that would take far longer using conventional breeding.

Cibus stock plunges to 52-week low
By 1 April, shares of crop gene editing pioneer firm Cibus had tumbled to a 52-week low. Cibus has been promoted by pro-GMO lobbyists as an industry leader for new GMO (gene-edited) crops. But there have been reports that Cibus is being investigated for deceiving investors with over-hyped claims.

A US court just put ownership of CRISPR back in play
The CRISPR patents are back in play. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said scientists Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier will get another chance to show they ought to own the key patents. The pair shared a 2020 Nobel Prize for developing the gene-editing system. But when US patent rights were granted in 2014 to Feng Zhang of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, the decision set off a bitter dispute in which hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake.

DEREGULATION: ENGLAND

England: GMO deregulation bill signed into law
In May, GMWatch received the following email notification from farm ministry DEFRA: “Over the last few weeks, the secondary legislation necessary to implement the Precision Breeding Act 2023 for plants in England successfully passed through Parliament. On 13 May, the legislation was signed by Minister Zeichner. Following a six-month WTO implementation period, the new regulatory framework will commence on 14 November 2025. From this point, marketing applications can be submitted for approval to DEFRA and the FSA.” (No link in header)

UK government promises industry it will never find out if a “new GMO” harms health or environment

On 13 May the Genetic Technology Act 2023 – the legislation that removes so-called “precision bred” genetically modified plants and animals from GMO regulatory safeguards in England – was signed into law by Minister Daniel Zeichner. While we’ve known from the start that this was a badly written and scientifically bankrupt law, it has been made far worse by the wording of Zeichner’s secondary legislation that puts it into effect. It’s no surprise that the resulting legislation unscientifically assumes that “precision bred” GMOs – PB-GMOs for short – are no different and no more risky than conventionally bred organisms. But what is extraordinary – and likely unprecedented in GMO regulations anywhere in the world – is that the secondary legislation also forbids government regulators from ever finding out that a PB-GMO is different from, and more risky than, conventionally bred organisms. Even when it is. In effect, the government regulators have blindfolded themselves and tied their own hands behind their backs, so that they will never trace the origin of any harm to health or the environment that may caused by a PB-GMO.

England: DEFRA caught hiding poll data to justify absence of labelling for new GMOs
Fittingly, the UK government chose April Fools’ Day (1 April) to pass the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations, without opposition or comment from the elected representatives in the House of Commons. A member of a House of Lords committee that scrutinised the legislation has spoken out, criticising the government’s farm ministry DEFRA for justifying its GMO deregulation policy based on polling data that it tried – but failed – to keep secret.

England: Misleading statements must be corrected
Beyond GM has filed a formal complaint with UK farm ministry DEFRA and the Chair of the Second Delegated Legislation Committee regarding misleading statements made in a committee meeting by DEFRA Parliamentary Under-Secretary Emma Hardy MP during the DLC's consideration of the Draft Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025.

UK: Manufactured panic over ill-thought-out GMO deregulation
A series of new scare stories in the media claim a Labour “reset” with the EU could force the UK to abandon its Genetic Technology Act and GM “precision bred” crop deregulation. But this is a manufactured “panic” driven by ideology, not science or trade realities, writes Beyond GM.

UK govt needs to learn: Higher yields don ’t mean higher profits
Steven Reed, UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, told the House of Commons EFRA Committee that GMO “precision breeding” will boost farm profits by increasing yields. But there’s a problem: GMOs to date have failed to increase yields and there’s no reason to think new GMOs will be any different. And even if they did increase yields, higher yields don’t always mean higher profits. In an X thread, Beyond GM looks at how Reed’s assumption clashes with economic reality.

GENE EDITING HYPE

Hype around “gene edited superfruits ” reaches fever pitch
The hype around gene-edited crops is reaching fever pitch again, with headlines like “Gene edited superfruits that last for weeks heading for our shelves”. We're promised “bananas that don’t go brown and strawberries that stay fresh for a month”. But what’s actually being delivered – and when? Beyond GM unpacks the real story behind the silly headline. GMWatch comments that in addition, it’s important to note that an appearance of long-lasting freshness will simply enable consumers to eat non-fresh food, with an inevitable sacrifice in nutritional value and a potential food poisoning risk from the growth of bacteria on food left out for extended periods of time.

EU DEREGULATION PROPOSAL

EU: Compromise negotiations begin on new GMOs deregulation
Representatives of the Council of the EU, European Commission and European Parliament have begun meetings (trilogues) to try to hash out a compromise on the controversial new GMOs (new genomic techniques, NGTs) deregulation file. Patents are a sticking point. While Parliament proposes a total ban on NGT patents, member countries are not convinced. Also, industry groups are at odds on whether new GM plants should be subject to traceability and labelling requirements. Euroseeds, an industry group, published its view that these requirements would be costly, difficult to enforce, and possibly damage trade and competitiveness of EU NGT products. But the European Non-GMO Industry Association ENGA counters that traceability practices are well established and that consumers have a right to know if products they consume are NGTs. (Source: Politico – subscription only, no link in header)

Big Ag pushes EU lawmakers to roll back consumer rights
The industry’s cards are now fully on the table regarding the proposed deregulation of GM plants engineered with so-called “new genomic techniques” (NGTs), writes Franziska Achterberg of Save Our Seeds. Major chemical and biotech industries, commodity traders, seed breeders and the farmer umbrella group Copa-Cogeca have launched a full-blown attack on consumer rights. In a joint statement, they demand that EU legislators abolish a long-standing rule that all GM food must be labelled and GM plants must be traceable.

New GMOs: Freedom of choice only possible through mandatory labelling, warn civil society organisations

While the agri-industry lobby is pushing the European institutions to remove freedom of choice for consumers by preventing the labelling of new genetically modified organisms (GMOs) obtained by new GM techniques (new genomic techniques, NGTs) on our food, over 40 European and national organisations, including GMWatch, are warning of the urgent need to protect consumer rights and maintain European legislation on labelling and traceability. The trilogue process between the Council, Commission and European Parliament is in progress and the next key meeting is planned for 30 June. The European Parliament’s agreed position included on-package labelling of all products containing NGTs. They must hold tight to this position and not be pushed into a compromise on consumer information, demand the signers of the statement.

Should the EU weaken regulation on new generation GMOs? – podcast interview
To better understand the reasons for and against the deregulation of new GMOs (new genomic techniques, NGTs), Euronews Tech Talks spoke with two experts from different sides of the debate: Michael Antoniou, Professor of molecular genetics and toxicology at King’s College London; and Nathalie Verbruggen, Professor of plant physiology and molecular genetics at the Université Libre de Bruxelles. In his interview, Prof Antoniou debunks several myths that are being spread about the properties and potential of new GMOs, including that new GM techniques are precise and that new GM crops can provide solutions to climate change.

New GMOs deregulated: The wet dream of the biotech industry coming true (podcast)
In a podcast, Corporate Europe Observatory’s campaigner and researcher Nina Holland talks about the intense lobbying battle that the biotech industry has been waging to get its new generation of genetic modification techniques excluded from European GMO regulations. If it worries you, write to your MEP!

EU: Proposed GMO deregulation criteria don ’t make sense, says scientist
Katja Tielbörger, a professor of plant ecology at the University of Tübingen in Germany, said she is not opposed to new GM techniques (new genomic techniques, NGTs), but expressed serious concerns about the proposed EU deregulation. She is worried about the potential environmental and agricultural impacts of introducing new plant varieties, especially given our limited understanding of wild species. “We cannot claim any equivalence of NGT 1 [new GMOs that deregulation supporters claim are conventional-like and thus don’t require regulation] with normal breeding,” said Tielbörger as she questioned the distinction between NGT 1 and NGT 2. NGT 2 are new GMOs with more complex alterations than NGT 1 and are proposed to remain under the GMO regulations. Tielbörger added, “Even molecular biologists would agree that this distinction between NGT 1 and NGT 2 is not based on scientific evidence. I mean it’s just a random number and it doesn’t make sense.” She is also unconvinced about the ability of NGTs to save our food system, saying, “We don’t need any new varieties to feed the world. Food security is not an issue of which varieties we have. It’s an issue of how the food is distributed and what is happening with it.”

New GM techniques (NGT): OPTA Europe calls to protect organic industry and consumers with clear and enforceable rules
OPTA Europe – the voice of the organic processing and trade industry in Europe – has called for the text of the EU GMO deregulation proposal to be improved by providing the effective means for enforcing the right of organic food and drink makers to keep their products free from gene-edited organisms. Traceability and labelling along the supply chain is necessary, says OPTA Europe.

Abolition of GMO labelling requirements for new GM plants and foods would violate international law
A legal opinion commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Agriculture concludes that the abolition of labelling requirements for plants modified with new genetic engineering techniques and their products would violate international law. The legal opinion examines the compatibility of the EU deregulation proposal for new GM techniques with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Its verdict is that it fails to comply with the Protocol.

GMO design, just a prompt away
Experts from Testbiotech and the Aurelia Foundation asked ChatGPT 4o to design GM plants that produce high levels of proteins toxic to insects feeding on them (so-called pests). They also asked the AI to ensure the plant would fall within the NGT1 category of GMOs, which the EU proposes to exempt from its GMO regulations. The AI suggested several CRISPR/Cas modifications in maize. These changes would enhance the production of an insecticidal protein that the plant typically produces in response to insect attacks and make its expression permanent. Insects such as butterflies and moths that feed on the engineered maize would be unable to digest it properly and would starve. This would not only affect the targeted (pest) insects but also other insects, and disrupt ecosystems, food webs and biodiversity. The novel insect-killing traits would be highly unlikely to emerge through conventional breeding. However, under current EU legislative proposals, they could nevertheless be released into the environment without any prior assessment of potential environmental risks.

EU Action Alert: Do not deregulate “new GM ” techniques (NGT) for wild plants!
GFÖ – the largest scientific ecological society in Europe – has organised a petition related to the newly planned legislation regarding new GM techniques (NGT) in Europe. The main target of the planned legislation is applications in agriculture. However, it would apply to all plant species, i.e. an estimated 300,000 species on Earth. Sign the petition demanding that wild plants are excluded from deregulation!

INDIA: GENE-EDITED RICE

India: New gene-edited rice varieties: Biotech hype trumps farmers’ and climate needs
India’s rice research institute ICAR has released two gene-edited rice varieties, which the government claims will improve crop resilience and sustainability. However, researcher Dr Narasimha Reddy Donthi writes, “The perception of the scientists is at variance with that of the farmers. Farmers are not complaining about low yields, but about high costs of cultivation and unremunerative market prices” – problems that gene-edited rice won't solve. He adds, “Indian farmers have had bitter experiences with different varieties released by ICAR institutions in general, and with genetically modified Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton seed varieties released by private seed companies in particular.” He says the government’s promotion of the rice varieties is “about hyping biotechnology – not enhancing rice production, farmer income or ensuring public safety”.

India: Member of ICAR governing body says benefits claimed for gene-edited rice are unproven
Venugopal Badaravada, a member of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research’s (ICAR) governing body, says the organisation’s announcement of gene-edited rice reflects troubling trend of prioritising “science-for-headlines" over “solutions-for-the-farm”. He also said the benefits claimed were unproven: “Resilience to drought, salinity, or heat stress can only be authenticated through at least five to seven years of rigorous, pan-India testing. Skipping this process is scientifically irresponsible. At no point were farmers or field experts consulted in the development or evaluation of these varieties. This is emblematic of a top-down, technocratic approach that neglects grassroots experience.”

ICAR used patented CRISPR technology that will entail huge costs
In developing the gene-edited rice varieties (see above), ICAR overlooked the patent protections on the technology used, writes journalist Latha Jishnu: “While the use of CRISPR-Cas technologies is permitted for academic research, patent-holders set the licensing rules and claim rights over discoveries made with their technology. This means commercialisation of any breakthroughs cannot be made unless legally licensed, and the licensing fees can be astronomical in some cases. It is strange that ICAR was not aware of the terms and conditions of using this patented technology.” However, “the organisation is now waking up to the problem it faces, though belatedly” – and the costs may be high.

India: Telangana demands moratorium on releasing gene-edited rice in Indian market
The Telangana Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare Commission has strongly protested against the central government’s approval and release of gene-edited rice varieties. Commission chairman said farmers might be forced into dependency on proprietary seed technologies, threatening their right to save and exchange seeds under the Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Act. He said the state had witnessed the sad and pitiable experience of cotton farmers with Bt cotton and illegal herbicide-tolerant Bt cotton.

India: Activists call for withdrawal of gene-edited rice varieties
The Coalition for a GM-Free India has demanded that the central government withdraw the permission given for the release of two gene-edited rice varieties. Asking the government to share details of the safety testing done on these varieties, it said that there was a lack of public information on the exact process undertaken to develop these two varieties of gene-edited rice. “These crops should not be released without sufficient independent testing and must be subject to public scrutiny,” it said. “There is enough scientific evidence to suggest that gene editing technology is not precise and causes unpredictable genetic errors both at the targeted site and off-site,” the Coalition pointed out.

India: De-regulated techniques of SDN-1 and SDN-2 gene editing involve foreign genetic material
The Coalition for a GM-Free India accused the central government of being devious, unscientific, and irresponsible in releasing two gene-edited rice varieties. They write that contrary to the research institute ICAR’s claims, “de-regulated techniques of SDN-1 [gene disruption] and SDN-2 [gene modification] gene editing... involve foreign genetic material being used and unintentionally implanted in the host organism.” The Coalition draws attention to studies showing the dangers of gene editing.

Mutant rice and Bill Gates’s lab rats: Grand experiments in India’s fields

In late 2024, Bill Gates sparked outrage in India after describing the country as “a kind of laboratory to try things”, Colin Todhunter reports. His remarks were widely condemned. The controversy resurfaced with the announcement that India became the first country to officially release two gene-edited rice varieties. Even though these varieties were developed by the ICAR (Indian Council for Agricultural Research), civil society groups highlight that gene-editing tools like CRISPR/Cas9 are proprietary technologies, raising concerns about seed sovereignty and farmers’ rights.

GENE-EDITED ANIMALS

The US greenlights CRISPR pigs for food
The US Food and Drug Administration has greenlighted CRISPR gene-edited pigs, engineered to resist the respiratory virus known as porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, or PRRS, for consumption in the US. The virus thrives on intensive factory farms and kills piglets in the womb. The pigs were developed by the British company Genus. After the approval, the company’s stock value jumped up by a couple of hundred million dollars. According to Matt Culbertson, chief operating office of the Pig Improvement Company, a Genus subsidiary, the pigs appear immune to more than 99% of the known versions of the PRRS virus, although there is one rare subtype that may break through the protection. Culbertson says gene-edited pork could appear in the US market next year. He says the company does not think the meat will need to carry any label identifying it as GM. “We aren’t aware of any labelling requirement,” Culbertson says.
GMWatch comment on the gene-edited pigs:
We don’t expect the genetically engineered virus resistance – which even now is leaky – to last long in the gene-edited pigs. We saw in the COVID pandemic just how quickly viruses mutate to evade any barrier placed in their path. The genetically altered pigs will drive the evolution of mutations in the virus that enable it to break through the engineered virus resistance – potentially leading to the emergence of even more virulent strains of the virus.

NEW ZEALAND DEREGULATION PROPOSAL

New Zealand Gene Technology Bill breaches international convention on public right to know
The New Zealand government’s Gene Technology Bill is in breach of the GMO Amendment to the Aarhus Convention, which requires consulting the public, allowing public participation, and ensuring access to justice, says GE Free NZ. The bill proposed deregulation of new GMOs.

New Zealand: Risks of the Gene Technology Bill
New Zealand’s Gene Technology Bill may soon slip GMOs onto people’s dinner plates without them knowing. Claire Bleakley, President of GE Free NZ, explains the risks of this bill to the public’s food choices.

New Zealand: GM and non-GM crops can live side by side, says GMO developer
The co-existence of GM and non-GM plants in New Zealand will be challenging, but is achievable, according to researcher and chief technical officer for AgResearch subsidiary Grasslanz Technology John Caradus in an interview with Farmers’ Weekly. The proposed legislation in New Zealand is expected to allow greater use of GM (including gene editing) technology, which will make co-existence critically important. But Farmers’ Weekly doesn’t mention that Grasslanz Technology has an R&D investment portfolio that includes GM (including gene edited) forages and microbes.

New Zealand: Government misleading public over labelling of GM food
GM foods will not be labelled in New Zealand supermarkets, despite promises to allow consumer choice – and the public have been hoodwinked, says GE-Free NZ. Ministers and government MPs have told the public that new regulations for gene technology will allow consumers the right to choose by keeping labelling of GMO food sold in supermarkets. In February, Farmers Weekly reported that GM foods will be labelled in supermarkets, just as the government had promised before the election. But in March this was retracted after the publishers were contacted by food authorities to say GM foods will be exempted from labelling.

New Zealand govt denies lift in controversial herbicide limit is preparing ground for GMO bill
New Zealand’s Ministry of Primary Industries is proposing a hundredfold increase to the maximum limit of glyphosate, commonly used with genetically modified crops. The Government says there is no link between a proposal for a hundredfold increase in the allowable residue of the probable carcinogen glyphosate in some food products and the GMO bill making its way through parliament.

Details: Published: 10 June 2025

Leukemia findings are especially striking – potentially lending support to plaintiffs in court cases who allege that Roundup exposure caused their blood cancer

Details: Published: 10 June 2025

Currently only three New GMOs are being cultivated and not a single crop has contributed to sustainability goals

News

GLYPHOSATE-CANCER LINK FURTHER STRENGTHENED BY GROUNDBREAKING STUDY

OTHER RECENT FINDINGS

NORWAY: REVISION OF GMO REGULATION

GENE EDITING PROBLEMS AND FAILURES

DEREGULATION: ENGLAND

GENE EDITING HYPE

EU DEREGULATION PROPOSAL

INDIA: GENE-EDITED RICE

GENE-EDITED ANIMALS

NEW ZEALAND DEREGULATION PROPOSAL

Subcategories

Archive Article Count: 17901

2025 Article Count: 112

2024 Article Count: 91

2023 Article Count: 135

2022 Article Count: 156

2021 Article Count: 283

2020 Article Count: 333

2019 Article Count: 540

2018 Article Count: 567

2017 Article Count: 590

2016 Article Count: 707

2015 Article Count: 706

2014 Article Count: 569

2013 Article Count: 655

2012 Article Count: 839

2011 Article Count: 690

2010 Article Count: 741

2009 Article Count: 896

2008 Article Count: 1031

2007 Article Count: 1142

2006 Article Count: 1278

2005 Article Count: 1256

2004 Article Count: 1132

2003 Article Count: 1038

2002 Article Count: 927

2001 Article Count: 1169

2000 Article Count: 294

Languages Article Count: 202

Artigos em Portugues Article Count: 18

Portug General Article Count: 18

Artikelen in het Nederlands Article Count: 28

Dutch General Article Count: 28

Artikel auf Deutsch Article Count: 155

German General Article Count: 155

News review Article Count: 632

Latest News Article Count: 49