GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • Daily Digest
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
    • Articles
      • GM Myth Makers
      • GM Reports
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
    • Videos
      • Latest Videos
      • Must see videos
      • Cornell videos
      • Agriculture videos
      • Labeling videos
      • Animals videos
      • Corporations videos
      • Corporate takeover videos
      • Contamination videos
      • Latin America videos
      • India videos
      • Asia videos
      • Food safety videos
      • Songs videos
      • Protests videos
      • Biofuel myths videos
      • Index of GM crops and foods
      • Index of speakers
      • Health Effects
    • Contact
    • About
    • Donations
    • How donations will help us
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
      • 2021 articles
      • 2020 articles
      • 2019 articles
      • 2018 articles
      • 2017 articles
      • 2016 articles
      • 2015 articles
      • 2014 articles
      • 2013 articles
      • 2012 articles
      • 2011 articles
      • 2010 articles
      • 2009 articles
      • 2008 articles
      • 2007 articles
      • 2006 articles
      • 2005 articles
      • 2004 articles
      • 2003 articles
      • 2002 articles
      • 2001 articles
      • 2000 articles
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • How donations will help us
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Videos
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • Cornell videos
    • Agriculture videos
    • Labeling videos
    • Animals videos
    • Corporations videos
    • Corporate takeover videos
    • Contamination videos
    • Latin America videos
    • India videos
    • Asia videos
    • Food safety videos
    • Songs videos
    • Protests videos
    • Biofuel myths videos
    • Index of GM crops and foods
  • Contact
  • About
  • Donations

LATEST NEWS

  • The Monsanto Papers: Deadly secrets, corporate corruption, and one man's search for justice

  • Researchers want GMO transparency

  • New GM technology has no place in sustainable farming

  • Bayer’s plan for settling future Roundup cancer claims faces broad opposition

  • Hype over cloned ferret rings hollow

GMWatch Facebook cornfield banner

SCIENCE SUPPORTS REGULATION OF GENE EDITING

Plant tissue cultures

GENE EDITING: UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES AND RISKS

Damaged DNA on fire

GENE-EDITED CROPS & FOODS

Help stop the new threat

GM Fed pig

LATEST VIDEOS

  • Seed keepers and truth tellers: From the frontlines of GM agriculture
  • Myths and Truths of Gene-Edited Foods
  • Dangers of gene-edited foods

News Menu

  • Latest News
  • News Reviews
  • Archive
  • Languages

Please support GMWatch

Donations

You can donate via Paypal or credit/debit card.

Some of you have opted to give a regular donation. This is greatly appreciated as it helps place us on a more stable financial basis. Thank you for your support!

Westminster "breaking own rules" with genetically modified food consultation

Details
Published: 22 February 2021
Twitter

Campaign group Beyond GM says the consultation comes across as “biased and lacking in thought and planning”

EXCERPT: Although Defra claims its position “follows the science”, Beyond GM director and co-founder Pat Thomas said, “It is notable that the consultation document itself – which makes sweeping statements about gene editing being the same as traditional breeding or what could happen in nature – contains no references, scientific or otherwise.”
---

Westminster "breaking own rules" with genetically modified food consultation

By Xander Richards
The National, 17 Feb 2021
https://outline.com/Acptvw
[links to sources at this URL]

THE London Government has been accused of breaking its own rules with its recently launched consultation on the introduction of genetically edited (GE) foods into the UK.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) consultation was launched on January 7 with a view to change the law around GE foods.

Though the consultation is not UK-wide, the Internal Market Bill’s “non-discrimination clause” means that Scotland’s Government will be powerless to bar GE goods produced in England from being sold north of the Border.

Gene editing (GE) is slightly different from genetic modification (GM). While the latter involves inserting new genes into a DNA strand, GE involves the cutting and removing of undesirable parts of genes. [GMW: This is misleading. Gene editing *is* a GM technique. It differs from older-style transgenic GM in how the genetic disruption and damage occurs. Gene editing can and does sometimes insert new genes, both intentionally and unintentionally by mistake.]

Neither technology is allowed under EU law, which classifies both as genetic modification. However, with Brexit completed, the UK no longer needs to "slavishly follow" those "notoriously restrictive and politicised" restrictions, according to Environment Secretary George Eustice.

The Prime Minister has also expressed a desire to change the law. On his first day in office Boris Johnson promised to “liberate the UK’s extraordinary bioscience sector from anti-genetic modification rules”.

Defra’s consultation document argues that “retained EU law … is not consistent with the position taken by most countries who have reviewed their respective regulations”.

It goes on, “Our position follows the science, which says that the safety of an organism is dependent on its characteristics and use rather than on how it was produced.

“This is the basis for our proposal, which is that organisms produced by GE or by other genetic technologies should not be regulated as GM.”

However, Westminster’s own rules on consultation, published in 2018, state that the process should not be launched for “issues on which [ministers] already have a final view”.

The campaign group Beyond GM says the consultation comes across as “biased and lacking in thought and planning”.

Although Defra claims its position “follows the science”, Beyond GM director and co-founder Pat Thomas said: “It is notable that the consultation document itself – which makes sweeping statements about gene editing being the same as traditional breeding or what could happen in nature – contains no references, scientific or otherwise.”

In a letter dated January 26, Beyond GM’s directors, Pat Thomas and Lawrence Woodward, write to the UK Government to express their concerns that “the consultation is not being conducted in line with the Cabinet Office Consultation Principles”.

As well as listing a raft of ways in whcih they believe these consultation principles are being ignored, the letter accuses Defra of producing information which “actively misleads” both the public and media on the nature of the GE debate.

Thomas told The National that even those championing gene editing “do believe that some sort of regulation is necessary … the landscape of the discussion is ‘what should that regulation be?’”

She raised concerns that the UK Government’s consultation was a “hollow exercise” where ministers simply go through the motions necessary before they can change the law as they see fit.

In a damning article penned two weeks after the letter and with no response from Defra forthcoming, Thomas accused Westminster of being "wrapped up in ideology ... and bewitched by the biotech industry".

The campaigner says that the conversation around GM food requires "intelligent government, responsive government, government with vision, government that trusts its citizens. We double dare that government to show itself."

When The National approached Defra to ask for a response to the concerns rasied, it said: “Gene editing has the ability to harness the genetic resources that mother nature has provided, such as breeding crops that perform better, benefiting farmers and reducing impacts on the environment.

“Now that we have left the EU, we have the opportunity to make coherent policy decisions on gene editing based on current science and evidence.”

The UK Government department said that they “have been clear that we’d like to change” the law around GE technology, but said they are committed to “proportionate, science-based regulation”.

Thomas said Defra's answer was “incredibly disappointing”.

She went on, “This kind of boilerplate response that refuses to engage with people who have made serious points and serious criticisms of the process is the sort of thing that foments the really unhelpful discussions around GM.

“These are the discussions that everyone wants to avoid, where everyone takes extreme sides and then they don’t move. This is exactly what Defra is encouraging right now.”

Thomas said that her campaign group is not necessarily against GE food, but they are concerned that the Government is treating a complex issue as something that can be rushed through.

She said, “The fact is that deregulation is not a straightforward exercise and it is not a simple discussion.

“Removing regulatory controls from genetically engineered plants and animals has consequences. It has consequences with our relationship with our largest trading partner in the EU, it has consequences for consumer trust in the food system and for citizen trust in the Government.”

The consultation will run to March 17, 2020. Information on how to submit your views can be found here.

Menu

Home

News

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

How Donations Will Help Us

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

RSS

Content 1999 - 2021 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design