UK government bill to weaken regulations around new GMOs published
The UK government's "Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill", which drastically weakens safety controls around gene-edited GMOs, was published on 25 May. GMWatch will publish its comments on the bill soon. Meanwhile, below are some initial reactions and and related matters. While this issue of our Review is focused exclusively on the UK – our Review of the rest of the news will follow soon – we caution readers everywhere that the UK rush to deregulate new GM technologies will likely serve as a blueprint for similar processes in other countries and regions. As ever, this battle is global as well as local.
Fury over plans for gene-edited GMOs to be sold unlabelled in the UK
An article for the Daily Mail on the new bill (see above) gets several things wrong, but accurately reflects the government's intention to avoid labelling these GM products and the public alarm at this prospect.
UK: Gene-editing bill "a serious setback" for animal welfare, RSPCA warns
The RSPCA has expressed serious welfare and ethical concerns over the UK government's bill. The charity's head of public affairs, David Bowles, said the introduction of the bill was "incredibly disheartening and frustrating" from an animal welfare perspective. He said there were "more ethical and humane ways" to solve issues in the farming industry "without pushing farm animals even further towards their physical limits". The charity warned that gene editing had been "proven to cause unpredictable and unintended changes to the genetic makeup of animals", which could cause suffering: "The animal welfare impact of directly altering an animal’s genetic material can be unpredictable and we simply don't know the long-term consequences. There are potentially serious implications, for both farm animals and people who care about them and want to be ethical consumers." Deregulation of gene editing also called into question British food exports to the EU: "Leaving the EU has provided an opportunity to set the highest standards of welfare and we feel that allowing gene editing would be a serious step backwards which many people would not support."
UK: Fresh produce industry urges caution over gene editing
An article in The Grocer reports criticism of the bill from UK growers, who are cautioning against the rapid adoption of new gene-editing technology. The article quotes Philip Morley, technical executive officer of the British Tomato Growers’ Association, as saying that there had been a lack of consultation with the food sector on the government’s plans – leading to "“disconnect between the scientists, who are doing the research in their labs, and the growers, retailers and consumers" with "the growers, retailers and consumers… this is a major national conversation we need to have if we are going to be pioneers in that technology".
No UK supermarket is willing to say it will stock gene-edited food
The UK’s biggest supermarkets have reacted coolly to the idea of selling GM gene-edited food, with none willing to publicly say it will stock the new products despite an upcoming law change enabling the products to be sold in the country for the first time. UK environment minister George Eustice says food from gene-edited crops could be in shops next year.
Soil Association lambasts Genetic Technology Bill
The UK organic farming group the Soil Association has accused the government of casting around for silver bullets rather than trying to bring about constructive change in the UK’s food and farming system. Soil Association policy director Jo Lewis said: "We are deeply disappointed to see the government prioritising unpopular technologies rather than focusing on the real issues – unhealthy diets, a lack of crop diversity, farm animal overcrowding, and the steep decline in beneficial insects who can eat pests." Lewis added: "Instead of trying to change the DNA of highly stressed animals and monoculture crops to make them temporarily immune to disease, we should be investing in solutions that deal with the cause of disease and pests in the first place. History has proven that GM only benefits a minority of big businesses".
UK: Cross-border dispute over gene-edited crops
George Eustice wants his plans to allow gene-edited crops to be grown in England to be extended to both Scotland and Wales. Eustice has written to the Scottish and Welsh governments to urge them to reconsider their opposition to the technique. But the Welsh government has no plans to ease restrictions on gene-edited crops and the Scottish government "remains wholly opposed to the imposition of the (internal market) Act and will not accept any constraint on the exercise of devolved powers." The UK's internal market act would give any gene-edited crops approved for sale in England automatic access to the Scottish market.
Constitutional row looms over UK government's new gene editing law
The Herald newspaper in Scotland quotes Aileen McHarg, Professor of Public Law and Human Rights at Durham University, as expressing scepticism about George Eustice's offer for the devolved governments to follow England’s example: "It's almost as if they realise that allowing English gene-edited crops to be sold in Scotland/Wales even though the devolved institutions don't want it might be a teensy bit politically unpopular."
UK environment secretary boosts GM gene-edited crops by misleading the public
George ("Useless") Eustice has been briefing the media to boost the prospects of GM gene-edited crops and foods. According to an article in the i newspaper, for which Eustice is the only named source, "supermarket shoppers will be able to buy food produced using genetically-edited ingredients from as early as next year". But the article contains a series of lies and misleading claims, which GMWatch debunks.
Government spins gene-edited crops as answer to Ukraine food crisis
"Gene-edited crop production is to be sped up in the UK to help tackle the global food crisis brought on by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the minister in charge revealed," ran a story in the Daily Mail. The Daily Telegraph, another government-supporting paper, actually had this absurd fairytale as its front-page lead story. Even the UK biotech industry’s former spin doctor in chief, Julian Little, felt the need to distance himself from such claims, pointing out in a tweet that the Ukraine crisis was now and the government’s gene-editing legislation wouldn’t actually take effect "until 2023 at the earliest".
UK: Guidance on GMOs that "could have arisen through natural processes" is vague, unscientific, and irresponsible
In April the UK government's Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) published its guidance on GM techniques that produce a hypothetical class of GMOs that it claims "could have been produced by traditional breeding techniques or could have arisen through natural processes" and that therefore are to be exempted from GMO regulations and labelling. Developers who intend to grow these experimental crops in fields will be allowed to self-determine if their plants are QHPs and they do not have to submit evidence to prove that they are. GMWatch finds the guidance shockingly irresponsible in three aspects: Its wide-ranging scope, its wilful disregard of the science that underpins new GM technologies, and its vague and imprecise language. The document legitimises a "Wild West" of unregulated GMO plantings.
UK: FOI documents show Defra wilfully ignores public views on gene editing
Beyond GM has revealed the breathtaking lengths the UK government has gone to in order to ignore public opinion on GMOs in farming and the food chain. Documents released by farm ministry Defra, following a freedom of information request by Beyond GM, highlight the extent to which Defra is ignoring and seeking to misrepresent citizens and civil society organisations in the push to deregulate GM technologies. Defra removed from its official analysis more than half (52%) of the responses it received to the public consultation on its gene editing deregulation plans, on the basis that they were linked to campaign organisations. Even with this outrageous culling of responses, 85% of responses to the consultation wanted gene-edited crops, animals and foods to be regulated in the same way as other GMOs. This majority view was ignored by Defra and the government, which chose to focus instead on the less than 1% of responses from vested interests that supported their deregulation agenda. Defra also appears to have used an internal process called “coding” to downgrade or remove only those responses that criticised deregulation.
UK only: Dr Michael Antoniou on BBC’s Countryfile
Molecular geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou was interviewed for the BBC Countryfile programme, which aired on UK television on 22 May. Above is the online link (only available in the UK). Dr Antoniou highlighted the dangers of GM gene-edited crops and why the UK government's rush to deregulate them is a highly risky development. Molecular geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou was interviewed for the BBC Countryfile programme, which aired on UK television on 22 May. Above is the online link (only available in the UK). Dr Antoniou highlighted the dangers of GM gene-edited crops and why the UK government's rush to deregulate them is a highly risky development. He said, "The gene editing tools... invariably produce unintended DNA damage. If that happens you end up changing the biochemistry and the composition of the crop and that could include the production of novel toxins and allergens." People from Rothamsted Research, which is heavily involved in GMO development and field trials, also feature in the programme. The gene editing segment starts 10 minutes in (exact start 10:10).
GMWatch needs your support
GMWatch needs your support – not least because institutional funders have increasingly turned their backs on those of us challenging the industry’s GMO/pesticide onslaught. The best way you can support us is through a regular donation, though one-off donations are also welcome. Our thanks to all our existing supporters – we wouldn't be here without you!