Those pushing new GMOs have hyped technologies like CRISPR as revolutionising cancer treatments, tackling diseases that have remained largely untreatable till now, and even as a way of eliminating deadly diseases. And when it comes to agriculture, we are asked – in the words of one recent article – to “Imagine mangoes growing in the deserts of Rajasthan, wheat that thrives in extreme heat and provides higher nutrition, or rice that resists drought and pests without pesticides. CRISPR can make these a reality.” And the hype gets even wilder at the prospect of combining gene editing with artificial intelligence.
By contrast, our latest Review reports on the decidedly lacklustre and problematic reality of this technology, with sections summarising the latest on the RISKS OF NEW GMOs; the ongoing problems with gene-editing ventures (GENE EDITING PROBLEMS AND QUESTIONS), which includes the humbling of the medical gene editing industry, as well as gene editing firms crashing and burning; the paucity of NEW GM FOODS despite all the promises; the latest misleading efforts at NEW GMO SPIN; developments in the area of GM, PATENTS, AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; and important reports on GM MICROORGANISMS and GM GENE-EDITED ANIMALS. But first some pushback!
PUSHBACK ON NEW GMOs
New GMO (NGT) Free Zones
As the European Commission and some European governments block their ears to concerns about the risks of a possible deregulation of new GMOs (NGT), a grassroots movement has been launched in Italy to fight back from the ground up by encouraging local authorities to declare their areas “New GMO-Free Municipalities”. The campaign, led by the Italian Rural Association (ARI) and Centro Internazionale Crocevia (CIC), kicked off late last year with lots of local awareness-raising events. It quickly picked up its first resolution in Poppi in Tuscany, and four other municipalities have since followed – the latest and the largest to date being the city council of Acqui Terme in Piedmont. These local authorities commit to banning old and new-style GMO field trials on their territory; to banning old and new GMOs from school canteens and from all public procurement; and to creating a watchdog body on NGTs to implement these provisions; and finally, to putting a sign at the border of their territory saying, “Municipality free of new GMOs”.
Brand new petition to protect wild plants from new GMOs
The new legislation that the European Union is considering facilitates unregulated application of new GM techniques (NGT) to ALL plant species. That means no risk assessment before the release of not just gene-edited farm crops, which is bad enough, but all wild plants too. Please sign this brand new petition, set-up by highly regarded ecologists, calling for NO deregulation of new GMO (NGT) wild plants. Help protect our natural genetic resources in an era of mass extinction by spreading it widely.
Join the protest in Brussels 7 April
On Monday 7 April, join a protest in Brussels in front of the EU Parliament. One day before an important EU vote on the negotiating mandate on new GMOs (NGTs), protestors are demanding strong safeguards for farmers, consumers, and the environment. Full traceability and clear rules are a must – let’s make our voices heard!
Webinar on the labelling and traceability of new GMOs
On Tuesday 8 April, there is a chance to discuss with European political decision-makers and non-GMO industry representatives the labelling and traceability of new GMOs under the deregulation proposals currently being discussed in the European Union. The webinar will be offered in English, German and French with simultaneous interpretation. It starts at 11:30 in London (12:30 in Brussels). More details and registration available here.
UK: New GMO (GenTech) Regulations passed without a whisper
To an observer in the House of Commons who was interested in genetic engineering, it would have appeared that nothing of significance happened on 1 April (April Fool’s Day) 2025. The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations were not spoken of in the great chamber. Nevertheless, they were passed, as noted on an obscure page on the Parliament website. A highly critical report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was mentioned and instantly dispensed with. Anyone would think that the issues it raised – the impact on the organic sector, the UK internal market and trade with the EU – were of little significance. And so the silent starter pistol has been fired. Unlabelled, untraceable and un-risk assessed new GMOs will soon be heading to fields in England and plates in the UK. But there are still critical decisions to be made around the labelling of seeds – see next item for how to take action.
Tell the UK government: All genetically engineered seeds must be labelled!
The UK government’s consultation on whether or not it will label the seeds of new GMOs will close on 14 April. The stakes are high – they include the future viability of organic and non-GMO food production and the ability of growers and food producers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to abide by their national laws, which exclude cultivation of GMOs. Whether you’re a commercial food producer or home gardener, now is a crucial time to fight for your freedom of choice over what you plant. GM Freeze has simple guidance on how anyone in the UK can easily respond to the public consultation in just ten minutes!
NEW GMO FOODS
US, Canada Alert: No GMO salad
Although some forms of gene editing have been in use for well over two decades and CRISPR for a decade and more, only a tiny number of gene-edited products have ever reached the market and none of them exactly look set to transform the food supply. However, Bayer (formerly Monsanto) is getting ready to sell genetically engineered mustard greens that are gene edited to taste less mustardy. These salad greens could be sold in grocery stores in the US and Canada, starting in early 2025. Bayer also wants to sell the GM seeds to home gardeners and market gardeners. These GM leafy greens are the first gene-edited vegetable in North America (produced using CRISPR), and only the second GM vegetable grown in Canada (after GM sweet corn). Bayer is testing the market to expand into other gene-edited fruits and vegetables. If you're in the US or Canada, join the campaign to say no to GMO salad.
GENE EDITING PROBLEMS AND QUESTIONS
The CRISPR companies are not OK
A decade ago, gene editing was being hyped as ready to usher in a new era of medicine and there was talk of it tackling society’s biggest killers: cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes. But despite billions of dollars, dozens of startup launches, and some advances, that dream feels further away than ever, reports the biotech and pharma business news site Endpoints News. Hype, scientific setbacks, and growing investor demands have humbled the gene editing industry. There is also a caution noticeably lacking among many biotech food and agriculture researchers: the recognition that gene editing is still young, the number of treated patients are still few, and once made, gene edits cannot be undone. As the Chief Scientific Officer of Regeneron puts it, “You’re not going to try to cure a genetic problem in a 5-year-old where, God forbid, you don’t know what havoc you could wreak.”
Japan: Gene-edited crickets company goes bust
In Japan, Gryllus, an edible insect company that farmed and sold crickets for food and had developed gene-edited crickets, has gone bankrupt. Its debts amount to about 150 million yen (951,000 USD). Bio Journal commented, “eating insects and the modification of insects by genome editing have not gained the acceptance of consumers”. Gryllus filed for bankruptcy after facing public criticism over the use of its powdered crickets in school lunches. However, these crickets were non-GMO – Gryllus didn't get to the point of marketing its gene-edited crickets before it went belly-up.
Cibus stock plunges to 52-week low
Shares of crop gene editing pioneer firm Cibus Global Ltd. have tumbled to a 52-week low, with the stock price touching down at $1.8, marking a significant downturn for the company. This latest price level reflects a stark contrast to the stock’s performance over the past year, with Cibus Global witnessing a precipitous 1-year change of -90.96%. 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.
Cibus raises new concerns about effectiveness of its gene-editing technology
The gene-editing firm Cibus has raised significant new concerns about the effectiveness of its gene-editing technology. Investment magazine Stock Titan reports that Cibus has “issued a significant correction regarding previously reported rice gene editing conversion rates. The company acknowledged that the previously announced rates of 10-25% in rice have not been reconfirmed, citing high variability in conversion rate data from subsequent experiments.” Stock Titan adds, “The high variability in results suggests underlying technical challenges with their oligonucleotide directed mutagenesis (ODM) technology, potentially affecting their ability to deliver consistent results to customers. This setback could significantly impact Cibus's ability to secure new licensing agreements, as seed companies require robust and reproducible evidence of technology effectiveness before committing to partnerships.” GMWatch has been told by a plant breeder that “we all know ODM doesn't work”.
Gene editing company Cibus’s CEO resigns
Cibus has said its board has accepted the resignation of its co-founder and chair, Rory Riggs, as the company’s chief executive officer.
Unexpected findings raise questions about resilience of Japan’s gene-edited sedative tomato
Researchers have found that reduced content of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) enhances resistance to bacterial wilt disease and tolerance to drought stress in tomatoes. One of the researchers, Alberto Macho, has compiled an X thread on the findings. The journal publication is here. Interestingly, the GM gene-edited tomato that has been deregulated and commercialised in Japan has high levels of GABA, which is a sedative substance that is claimed to lower blood pressure. Will these high-GABA tomatoes be prone to bacterial wilt disease and less tolerant to drought? Keeping such plants regulated might have answered questions such as these.
GM, PATENTS, AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Could just one “new GM” company take control of all plant breeding?
The US company INARI has filed an international patent application claiming the use of DNA variants that are present in all plant species and regulate gene activity. This patent is based on a combination of new genetic engineering techniques (NGTs) and artificial intelligence (AI). It highlights how combining NGTs with AI is poised to open up a new ‘Pandora’s box’ with regard to risks associated with NGT plants, which will require robust GMO regulation. INARI is known for its use of AI in combination with NGTs and its aggressive policy of filing patents on plants. Their patent application claims the use of an unlimited number of DNA sequences decisive for gene regulation in all plant species. The company is thus attempting to control access to genetic information which is relevant for all breeders. In this context, AI is being used to screen plant genomes in databases for small regulatory units and their functions. This genetic information is then used to train the AI to identify the most interesting genetic variants for plant breeding. The INARI patent claims all plants obtained from this method, regardless of whether they are genetically engineered or not. At some point in the future, companies with the financial resources to apply for a large number of patents will take control of plant breeding in Europe. Traditional breeders will be squeezed out or become dependent on licence contracts.
Convergence of generative AI and genetic engineering raises new concerns
A new report by Save Our Seeds highlights the increasing use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in the development of GM plants, raising significant new concerns about their safety. These developments come at a time when the European Union (EU) is considering a far-reaching deregulation of GM plants engineered with gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR-Cas. Under proposed EU rules, most gene-edited plants would bypass existing EU requirements for GMO risk assessments, traceability, and consumer labelling. The proposed rules assume that developers are making only small genetic modifications and that these changes could also be achieved through conventional breeding. These assumptions have long been disputed. With the rise of AI-driven genetic engineering, they have become even more questionable. AI technologies now enable developers to even create “new-to-nature” proteins and organisms, which could pose previously unknown risks.
RISKS OF NEW GMOs
Research shows that “new GM” plants need to be risk assessed
A Chinese study has called attention to the many unexpected side effects result from new genetic engineering (NGT) applications in rice. The researchers targeted so-called zinc-finger proteins, which play an important role in controlling gene activity. The proteins are associated with important functions in plants, such as responses to environmental stress, flower induction, growth, and germination. The application of NGT caused a broad range of unintended effects. The CRISPR/Cas gene scissors also caused changes in off-target DNA sequences, and the plants exhibited considerable genetic instability in passing the genetic alterations to following generations. In addition, the effects of the NGT applications were different even when the same gene sequence was altered. This and an earlier publication show a need for mandatory risk assessment of NGT plants. GMWatch notes that the authors of the Chinese study recommend “multi-generation backcrossing to achieve a stable genetic platform”. Extensive backcrossing, of course, takes a lot of time – negating the claimed advantage of speed for the gene-editing approach over conventional breeding.
Challenges for post-market environmental monitoring in the EU imposed by novel applications of GM (including gene-edited) organisms
The existing regulatory provisions for GMOs require an obligatory post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) of potential adverse effects upon release into the environment. So far, GMO monitoring activities have focused on GM crops. With the advent of new GM techniques, novel GMO applications are being developed and may be released into a range of different, non-agricultural environments with potential implications for ecosystems and biodiversity, according to a new scientific publication. The authors write that this challenges the current monitoring concepts and requires adaptation of existing monitoring programmes.
Gene editing: myths, risks, and resources
Don’t forget to check out GMWatch’s deconstruction of the myths about gene editing that are promoted by the pro-GMO lobby.
GM MICROORGANISMS
GM microorganisms: A new global environmental disaster in the making?
A new report from GeneWatch UK describes the use of genetic engineering (including genome editing) to create GM microorganisms, including bacteria, viruses and microscopic algae and fungi. Microorganisms live everywhere – for example, in the gut and skin microbiomes of humans, pets, livestock and wild animals; and in plant roots and soil. Contrary to established norms, the deliberate release of living GM microorganisms, which can survive and reproduce in the environment, has begun, driven by commercial interests and technological developments. In some cases, such as the idea of self-spreading vaccines, widespread dispersal is intentional. The report concludes that GM (including gene-edited) microorganisms should not be deliberately released into the environment, due to the inability to predict and/or manage future adverse effects on health and the environment.
NEW GMO SPIN
“New GMO” grapevines in Italy: Researchers mislead the public and the press
“Vandals destroy experimental vines in Italy amid GMO confusion” is the headline of an article in the wine industry magazine Vinetur. The subtitle adds, “Chardonnay vines using assisted evolution targeted in attack; researchers clarify they are not genetically modified organisms. Investigation ongoing”. In reality though, these are indeed GMO vines, and the researchers are deliberately misleading the public and press about their GMO status. The authorisation of the open-field testing of these GMO vines is being fought in the courts, as part of a wider Italian campaign against the liberalisation of new GMOs.
Why Big Agri wants to call new-generation GMOs anything but that
New genomic techniques, new breeding techniques, gene editing, precision breeding – these buzzwords may sound like winning moves in Scrabble, but they are confusing for many of us. And make no mistake, they were designed for that very purpose, writes Mute Schimpf of Friends of the Earth Europe in a super-clear short article. She continues, “In reality, they quite simply refer to a new generation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Calling them ‘new GMOs’ would have been transparent, but such clarity would likely have sparked widespread public resistance to the European Commission’s legislative proposal to deregulate them. The deliberate use of confusing and blurry concepts discourages informed debate, leaving citizens sidelined and journalists reluctant to dig deeper.”
GM GENE-EDITED ANIMALS
EFSA proposal to weaken risk assessment for “new GM” animals threatens animal welfare
GeneWatch UK has submitted a response to the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) consultation on its “Draft scientific opinion on new developments in biotechnology applied to animals: an assessment of the adequacy and sufficiency of current EFSA guidance for animal risk assessment”. The “new developments” are the genetic engineering technologies of synthetic biology (SynBio) and new genomic techniques (NGTs), such as CRISPR-Cas and other types of gene editing. Predictably, EFSA found “no new potential hazards, and thus, no new risks to humans, animals, or the environment are anticipated” from the use of these techniques in animals. GeneWatch UK says it is “concerned that the draft guidance attempts to significantly weaken the regulatory oversight of genetically modified (GM) animals in the EU, and thus fails to protect human and animal health, the environment, and animal welfare”.
New genetic engineering in livestock: A critical review
Testbiotech has published a report on the application of new genetic engineering (new genomic techniques, NGTs) in animals used for the production of food. The special focus of this report is on the protection of animals, health and the environment. The report is a contribution to ongoing discussions in regard to the future regulation and risk assessment of “new GM” animals. Testbiotech says: “New genetic engineering can be used to bring about genetic changes in vertebrates that go beyond what is currently possible, or might be expected, from applying conventional breeding methods... Inadequate regulation of NGT animals will result in an increase in the number of animal experiments, animal losses and animal suffering, all driven by questionable interests and prospects in financial gain.” See GMWatch's X thread here.
Company uses gene editing to create glow-in-the-dark rabbits
A new startup called the Los Angeles Project (named after the Manhattan Project) aims to make glow-in-the-dark rabbits, hypoallergenic cats and dogs, and possibly, one day, it claims, actual unicorns. The project is the brainchild of biohacker Josie Zayner, who in 2017 publicly injected herself with the gene-editing tool CRISPR during a conference and livestreamed it. “I want to help humans genetically modify themselves,” she said at the time. However, there’s the question of what happens if something goes wrong. CRISPR can cause unintended edits, which could lead to cancer or other health problems in an animal. Plus, no one really knows how many edits can be made to an animal’s genome without causing harm. And GloFish offer a cautionary tale. In Brazil, the fluorescent fish have escaped fish farms and are multiplying in creeks in the Atlantic Forest, raising concerns about whether they pose a threat to native species.
..................................................................
We hope you’ve found this newsletter useful. Please support our work with a one-off or regular donation. Thank you!