A new analysis by A Bigger Conversation suggests that, in its haste to deregulate agricultural gene technologies, the UK government is “choosing to get it wrong” by ignoring expertise from all sides.
It’s Evidence Week in Westminster. We don’t trust the organisers to ensure the evidence around gene editing is represented fairly. Use our alternative online platform to send key questions that your MP should be able to answer.
Our response to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) consultation on widespread regulatory reform in the UK, emphasises the importance of regulation and precaution, the complex regulatory requirements of so-called ‘disruptive’ technologies like gene editing and the urgent need for more citizen input.
The UK government says it will “unlock the power of gene editing” through a series of measures designed to make research, development and routes to market faster and more streamlined. But behind the hype many questions remain.
More than 50 groups have sent a response to the Commission, strongly opposing its plans on the grounds that “deregulation of new GM techniques would pose unacceptable risks to human and animal health and the environment. Deregulation would also prohibit citizens from knowing what they are eating and farmers from knowing what they are sowing.”
The UK’s National Food Strategy has been widely welcomed but whilst it makes some good points it is, in the end a fundamentally flawed document that avoids the conflicts of values and world views that maintain business as usual in food and farming.
From GM Free MeThe creator of the genetically engineered White Russet potato on why he has renounced his work and wh…
From GM Free MeIn the first of many pending trials in the US, a California jury has ruled that the herbicide glyphos…