GMWatch News Review archive

Review 584: New GMOs

Print
Details

 

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
Image
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
Image
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
Image
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 
Image
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 
Image
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
Image
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.