Over the last few years, ‘testing the fences’, to find places where the public might be less opposed to GMOs, has become fundamental to the biotech industry’s PR plan. Now it’s turning its attention to the world of nature conservation.
Gene editing (GE) is now being proposed as a way to help conserve plants in the wild. But is it a real solution to some real problems – or does it have the potential to make things worse?
Novelty, the ability to stay ahead of trends and to offer the unusual is one of the things that drives the restaurant business. There is very little regulation around the kind of food that can be served. There’s no real prohibition, for instance, against serving endangered species – though this is a questionable practice, especially … Read more
Key consumer and environmental protections will be the first to go as biotech developers lobby government to rewrite, or even scrap, GMO regulations.
‘Bioengineering’ nutrients into our food – a promise which so far has failed to materialise – distracts us from real issues of soil degradation, climate change, poor diet choices and lack of political will to support a right to food.
A new survey claims to show that GM food opponents are ignorant extremists. That’s how it’s being spun – but does the evidence really stand up?
An EU-funded study has falsely claimed to show the GM diets had no adverse effects and to refute the Séralini long-term study on GM maize and Roundup.
The European Commission’s Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM) – a group with well known ties to industry – has issued a statement saying that the EU’s laws on GMOs should be revised to clear the path for “new GM” techniques.
The idea that new ‘genome editing’ techniques like CRISPR and gene drives could have a role in organic agriculture has prompted some difficult discussions around values and worldviews.
A UK doctor took matters into her own hands and had four popular UK cereal brands tested for glyphosate. So just what are we – and our children – eating?