2018-08-07 |

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) as Invasive Species

This paper frames genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as invasive species. This offers a way of considering the reception, diffusion and management of GMOs in the foodscape. “An invasive non-native species is any non-native animal or plant that has the ability to spread causing damage to the environment, the economy, our health and the way we live” (NNSS, 2017). Without any social licence, pesticide companies have thrust GMOs into the foodscape. The release of GMOs has generally been unwelcome, there has been no ‘pull’ factor from consumers and there has been vocal resistance from many. The apologists for GMOs have argued the self-contradictory conceit that GMOs are ‘same but different’. Under this logically untenable stance, GMOs are to be excluded from specific regulation because they are the ‘same’ as existing organisms, while simultaneously they are ‘different’ and so open to patenting. GMOs are patented and this demonstrates that, prima facie, these are novel organisms which are non-native to the foodscape. GMO apologists have campaigned intensively, and successfully in USA, to ensure that consumers are kept in the dark and that GMOs remain unlabelled - as a consequence GMOs are ubiquitous in US consumer foods. In contrast, in Australia GMOs are required to be labelled if present in consumer products and, in consequence, Australian food manufacturers do not use them. The release of a GMO calls for biosecurity measures. After trial plots of Monsanto GM canola in Tasmania in the 1990s, the sites continue to be biosecurity monitored for GMO escape, and volunteer canola plants continue to appear two decades later. In Western Australia the escape of GMO canola into a neighbouring organic farm resulted in the loss of organic certification and the monetary loss of the organic premium for produce. GMO produce sells for a 10% discount because of market forces and the consumer aversion to GMOs. Where non-GM product is accidentally contaminated with some GM grain, the whole batch is discounted and is sold as GMO. There is a lack of evidence that GMOs can be contained and many jurisdictions have banned the introduction of GMOs. GMOs have the potential and the propensity to contaminate non-GMO crops and thereby devalue them. The evidence is that GMOs are invasive species, they are unwelcome by consumers, peaceful coexistence with non-GM varieties is a fiction, and GMOs are appropriately managed as a biosecurity issue.

2018-08-06 |

Brazil judge suspends use of agrochemical glyphosate

SAO PAULO (Reuters) - A Brazilian judge has suspended the use of products containing the agrochemical glyphosate, a widely employed herbicide for soy and other crops in the country, according to legal filings.

A federal judge in Brasilia ruled that new products containing the chemical could not be registered in the country and existing registrations would be suspended within the next 30 days, until the government reevaluates their toxicology.

The decision, which could be subject to multiple appeals, also applies to the insecticide abamectin and the fungicide thiram.

The ruling affects companies such as Monsanto Co, which markets a glyphosate-resistant, genetically-modified type of soybean that is planted on a large scale in Brazil. Monsanto is now a unit of Bayer AG, following a $62.5 billion takeover of the U.S. seed major which closed in June.

Certain glyphosate-resistant corn and cotton strains have also been authorized in Brazil.

2018-08-04 |

Where is restriction on genome editing headed in Japan?

On 11 July 2018, the Natural Environment Subcommittee of the Central Environment Council under the Ministry of the Environment (MoE), held a meeting of its GMO, etc. specialist panel, at which it was decided to establish an "investigative panel on genome editing technology, etc. and the Cartagena laws" thus setting the direction for deliberations. The most important task is to organize the concepts that will help to make a decision on whether or not genome editing will be subject to restrictions under the Cartagena laws (see BJ July 2018).

Under the concepts indicated by the MoE, genome editing is divided into three types, known as SDN1 to SDN3. SDN1 is the editing technology in greatest use at present, in which DNA is simply cleaved. This case does not fall under restrictions regardless of whether nucleic acid (e.g. guide RNA) is included in the artificial nuclease (DNA-cleaving enzyme). SDN2 inserts several bases at the location of the cleavage, and while nucleic acid is not included in the artificial nuclease this is subject to restrictions. SDN3 is the case in which genes are inserted at the location of the cleavage, and since nucleic acid is included, this is also subject to restrictions. Therefore, deliberations are to be conducted on the basis that no restrictions are imposed in the case that nothing is inserted, and imposed in the case that something is inserted.

2018-08-03 |

Commission authorises five Genetically Modified products for food and feed use

Daily News 03 / 08 / 2018
Brussels, 3 August 2018
Today, the Commission has adopted authorisation decisions of five Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) for food and feed use. The authorisation decisions do not cover the use of these GMOs for cultivation. Today's decisions concern 2 new authorisations (maize MON 87427 x MON 89034 x NK603, maize 1507 x 59122 x MON 810 x NK603) and the renewal of 3 existing authorisations (maize DAS-59122-7, maize GA21, sugar beet H7-1). All of these Genetically Modified Organisms have gone through a comprehensive authorisation procedure, including a favourable scientific assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). All Member States had a right to express a view in the Standing Committee and subsequently the Appeals Committee, and the outcome is that the European Commission has the legal backing of the Member States to proceed. The authorisations are valid for 10 years, and any products produced from these Genetically Modified Organisms will be subject to the EU's strict labelling and traceability rules. For more information on GMOs in the EU see:

2018-08-02 |

Nestle misled consumers about GMOs in its food products. lawsuit alleges

Nestle is facing a federal class-action lawsuit in Los Angeles alleging it sold products labeled as having "No GMO Ingredients" with genetically modified organisms.

The corporate parent behind such food brands as Stouffer's frozen dinners, Buitoni pasta, and Haagen Dazs ice cream also is accused on designing a seal on its product packaging with the intention to trick consumers into thinking that its products were certified by the non-profit Non-GMO Project, a leading authority on the subject

According to an 18-page court filing, Nestle's "No GMO Ingredients" label was developed by the Switzerland-based company to mimic the appearance of the Non-GMO Project seal, which is on more than 43,000 products. The suit also alleges that Nestle sold dairy from cows fed GMO grain, a violation of the non-profit's standards for its Product Verification Program.

Go to page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...