Europe Tightens Restrictions on CRISPR Gene-Edited Crops
Proponents of the ruling say CRISPR-Cas9 is largely untested
Latest News
Europe’s highest court ruled July 25 that crops edited with CRISPR technology should face the same tough scrutiny as conventional genetically modified (GM) organisms. [1]
The decision, handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ), is a blow to many scientists and other proponents of gene-editing who had hoped that gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR-Cas9 would be exempted from existing European law limiting the planting and sale of GM crops.
Under the ECJ ruling, crops edited with CRISPR and similar technologies are subject to a 2001 directive that was intended for older breeding methods.
Kai Purnhagen, a legal scholar at Wageningen University and Research in the Netherlands who specializes in European and international law, explained:
“It is an important judgment, and it’s a very rigid judgment. It means for all the new inventions such as CRISPR-Cas9 food, you would need to go through the lengthy approval process of the European Union.”
CRISPR-Cas9 was designed to “snip away” bits of undesirable genetic code and replace them with more desirable ones. The 2001 ECJ directive was intended to apply to the insertion of entire genes, or long stretches of DNA, into organisms. It is supposed to be a very precise technology, but a 2017 study found the gene-editing technique can cause a plethora of unintentional genetic mutations.
Monsanto’s “Roundup ready” corn is an example of a GMO produced using transgenesis, an ‘older’ breeding method. The corn contains genes from a bacteria resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. Roundup ready corn is designed to withstand being doused with glyphosate even as surrounding weeds are killed off. (Though in many cases, glyphosate fails to actually kill the weeds.) [2]
Monsanto received the first CRISPR license to modify crops in 2016.
The law exempts organisms whose genomes were modified using mutagenesis techniques, such as irradiation, which introduce changes to an organism’s DNA but doesn’t add foreign genetic material. [1]
The ECJ’s recent decision was made at the request of the French government which, in 2016, asked the high court to interpret the 2001 directive in light of new and emerging plant-breeding techniques.
Mute Schimpf, a food and farming campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, one of the anti-gene-editing groups involved in the court case, said:
“These new ‘GMO 2.0’ genetic engineering techniques must be fully tested before they are let out in the countryside and into our food. We welcome this landmark ruling which defeats the biotech industry’s latest attempt to push unwanted genetically modified products onto our fields and plates.” [2]
Related Read: New Genetically Modified CRISPR-Mushroom Bypasses USDA Regulations
In the United States, the government has ruled that GM crops are no different from those produced via traditional cross-breeding and pose no health or environmental threats.
Sources:
[1] Nature
|
| Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog. |
Wow Jules, you have finally made the big time!! You now have told such lies that Ted miner has seen fit to try and back you up. Of course it is only more proof to any half educated idiot that you are lying as well.
Have you been drinking? There is no ted posting here.
You just did under one of your many well documented accounts.
How do you know that Ted Miner isn’t backing her up? Do you know everything that Ted Miner does?
Apparently, you are not here to discuss the article. Look’s like a couple industry PR astroturfers with an agenda to me. Please take your spamy troll somewhere else.
Oh, I wish someone would discuss the article. Instead, someone wants to go about pretending they know everything about Ted Miner. It is distracting that Duncan Debunkerman wants to keep talking about Ted Miner (as well as making accusations about people being drunk). Those of us who wish to discuss the article are having a hard time with it with people always talking about Ted Miner. I bet Ted Miner doesn’t like people putting words in his mouth, either.
Now, “ROBIN” what about the article would you like to discuss?
See a shrink!
So, you don’t want to discuss the article?
I see.
Well, Ted was probably happy for a minute that you stuck up for him, but now that he sees that you have hijacked his name in order to insult others, I am sure that he is disappointed that you joined the ranks of other dishonest astroturfers like razorjack and Duncan Debunkerman.
Sure, pal. Get some help. You have some serious problems.
Because I want to discuss the article I have problems? Weren’t you just here now complaining because Duncan Debunkerman didn’t want to address the article and instead was putting words in Ted Miner’s mouth?
Maybe you are the one who should “see a shrink.”
You posted lies about the article already. The rest of your posts have been hysterical spam about people who are not posting here. I’ll not waste my time with an obvious troll.
Name one lie I have posted about the article.
What hysterical spam have I posted about people not posting here? You mean where I defended Ted Miner from the libel that Duncan Debunkerman was saying about him? I would hardly call defending Ted Miner spam. Are you friends with or related to this Duncan Debunkerman guy? Why do you both have it in for Ted MIner?
Your response to razorjack was a deception and full of self serving lies. Get some help and leave the sane people alone until you can get your serious issues fixed.
My response to razorjack has what to do with the things we were discussing? Why are you changing the subject? Are you and this Duncan fellow enemies of Ted Miner that you both are going to such great links to start rumors about him? He isn’t even here to defend himself. Why, I don’t think this is possible, but it almost seems as if you and this Duncan fellow are the same person pretending to be two different people so you can spread your hate of Ted Miner.
Also, there was no deception or self serving lies in my post. I corrected myself when i realized that Nature dot com was indeed hosting a known fraudster’s pretend article about glyphosate. I am deeply saddened that Nature dot com has decided that they no longer need to check out the articles they put on their website.
Doubling down on your propaganda and deception will not work. See a shrink. I’m done with you here.
Then leave. Some of us would like to discuss the article and don’t need your constant trolling of Ted Miner to get in the way.
I’m thinking Dumo hasn’t come here to discuss anything.He just posted to trash the author and the commentators posting replies.
Nope. I didn’t say one thing about the author. Just more lies from a proven liar.
I only replied to people that post lies so that I could correct those lies.
Where did I trash the author?
Where and what are the lies here? You have made the untruthful statement,there is no Ted Miner posting.What is your problem with this post from Julie?
Seems so weird that so many people are sure that a bunch of anonymous commentors are NOT Ted Miner. If I didn’t know better, I would begin to think that the same person is behind all of these accounts.
I wasn’t responding to you.
So?
You posted on a public forum. If you wanted to speak privately, perhaps don’t post on a public forum?
“Roundup ready corn is designed to withstand being doused with glyphosate even as surrounding weeds are killed off.”
Really jules? The normal rate of glyphosate is 22 ozs per acre. An average plant population for corn is 32,000 plants. Your dousing is less than 1/1000 of an ounce per plant, and that is of course assuming that EVERY DROP hits the corn and zero hits the weeds or ground. It is a shame that you cant find honest work instead of lying for a living.
Roundup has been found to cause fatty liver disease at levels that are over 430,000 times lower than what is allowed in the food supply. See: https://www*nature*com/articles/srep39328
Volume is not a good measure of the impact of these chemicals unless one is attempting to obfuscate the facts.
That “science” is highly flawed, as has been pointed out to you in the past. There is no link between fatty liver disease and glyphosate, at least that is known.
If not using volume, how exactly are you supposed to measure a liquid?
I’ll believe the study posted on the Nature website that Wally posted here. You are a well known industry PR asset who posts industry propaganda and dis-info all over social media. You have been known to label any science as flawed if it conflicts with the industry agenda.
That study was not posted on the Nature website. It is posted on a website that is owned by Nature. It has also based its findings on another study run by Serallini which has been found to be wrought with fraud.
I don’t post all over social media. I comment on articles using the disqus platform. Sometimes I catch you, or one of your 12 alter egos (like Wally) in a lie. WHne I do, I point it out.
You don’t know me very well if you think that last statement is correct. I often point out the flaws of science, even if it backs something I support and in the past I have pointed out studies that might contradict my own understanding of the science. The fact is, while those studies exist, they don’t exist in sufficient amount to make me change my mind. If you knew anything about science–and understood peer review–you would see why this study is nonsense until someone is able to replicate it. In addition, what industry are you speaking about?
Why would anybody believe a industry PR astroturfers lies? I looked and the study is on the Nature website. Who are you trying to deceive?
I really don’t know why anyone believes the astroturfer, razorjack. That is a good question.
I am sorry, but I was mistaken. Naturedotcom, which is owned by the same parent company that owns Scientific Reports, has decided to tarnish its reputation by posting a discredited article by the known scientific hack who argued in court that someone is guilty of libel because they called him a fraud. He successfully won by convincing the court that he was not a fraud, he was just inept at his duties in publishing correct science.
I guess this is the kind of people that astroturfers rely on when they want dishonest science to deceive people.
Nature owns Scientific Reports. Your attempts to deceive by omission are not working here.
I did not deceive. I stated exactly that in my post.
I thought you were leaving. I see you lie about everything.
What you are saying is completely false. I’ve seen you spewing industry propaganda on these types of forums, over and over again. You are not to be taken seriously.
You never did answer my question. How should we measure RoundUp?
Also, that article, even though full of bias and faulty methods, did not actually discuss the proper way to measure RoundUp. Maybe you were looking for another article that says we should measure RoundUp using mass?
speaking of measuring RoundUp…how would you suppose 300 million lbs per year in the U.S. is measured when it is found in our air,water,soil,food and breast milk?
Oh, are you here as well. Are you one of ROBIN’s sockpuppets?
Don’t really know what you are talking about. Pounds don’t mean much, especially since RoundUp is a brand name and lots of different formulas are sold using that brand name. All different concoctions at all kinds of different concentrations with all different kinds of ingredients. They even make RoundUp without glyphosate, and one formulation has acetic acid as its active ingredient. I am sure that acetic acid has managed to find its way into breast milk.
If you think I don’t know what I’m talking about,well then I guess the USDA doesn’t either. I’m no ones sock puppet.Your comment about acetic acid in comparison to glyphosate in breast milk,hilarious!
You said RoundUp, not glyphosate. We don’t measure solutions that could be made up of any number of things in any number of ratios using weight. The USDA would talk about active ingredients and parts per million or billion. The fact that you misinterpreted what I said as a comparison between acetic acid and glyphosate just illustrates how little you do know.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. You know that, but apparently your agenda here is obfuscation and deception. You really ought to quit your troll before you dig your hole any deeper.
Oh, hi Cletus. Your brother was here earlier saying some awful things about Ted Miner.
But if you had read my earlier post, you would see that glyphosate is not always the active ingredient in RoundUp, which was my point. Saying there are 300 milion lbs of Round Up contaminating air, soil, and breast milk (which in itself is ridiculous, 300 million lbs is what is sold in the US, it breaks down after application so I find it hard to believe that 300 million pounds has also found its way into breast milk, soil, and air) doesn’t say much, since in at least one formulation of RoundUp, acetic acid is the active ingredient.
See also RoundUp Lawn.
One formulation of RoundUp with acetic acid,and would that perhaps be found in Europe?
Yes, one formulation with acetic acid is found in Europe, however there is also RoundUp Lawn which does not contain glyphosate and is sold in the US. In addition, you still haven’t told me what the concentration of glyphsoate was in all that RoundUp.
okay..you want just glyphosate…the journal Environmental Sciences Europe reveals that Americans have applied 1.8 million tons of glyphosate since its introduction in 1974. Worldwide, 9.4 million tons of the chemical have been sprayed onto fields. For comparison, that’s equivalent to the weight of water in more than 2,300 Olympic-size swimming pools. It’s also enough to spray nearly half a pound of Roundup on every cultivated acre of land in the world.
And how much is half a pound? Seriously, are you talking pure Roundup, with no water? Or a solution of glyphosate and water? Half a pound over an acre is not that much, and do you know its half life or its toxicity? You are arguing for reintroduction of some really nasty chemicals because of a fear of something you don’t understand.
You know what?,your argument that without RoundUp/glyphosate means a return to more toxic chemicals is groundless..and here is what I do understand…RoundUp formulations containing glyphosate is a proven carcinogen. But continue on,Mr Damo,championing a lost cause. I kinda feel sorry for you.
Nope, you don’t know what a pound of RoundUp means in regards to toxicity and also hope cancer hasn’t been linked to glyphosate. The only tool you and the other sockpuppets have is silencing the truth. Sad, actually.
“The fact that you misinterpreted what I said as a comparison between acetic acid and glyphosate just illustrates how little you do know.” That is even funnier…its you who is clueless!
Yeah. I am the clueless one, meanwhile you are trying to tell me that there are 300 million lbs of glyphosate in our food, air, and breast milk. You don’t even understand that pounds means nothing.
Sorry, but I am done talking to this Ted Miner sockpuppet–who in the past has declared that I was done and that I am toast. Yet, here I am. Still disputing your lies.
You were done and toast on another comment thread,just like you will be on this one!
Nope, I still comment on that one, and surely you will arrange all of your “friends” to be involved in a mass flagging campaign here as well. But it won’t silence me or anyone else who calls out people who lie about science.
Why do you continuously and blatantly lie for the corrupt industry?