Rice has not been safety tested in animals or humans

According to an announcement by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), the Philippines Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Plant Industry has stated that it has found GMO golden rice to be "as safe as conventional rice".

The biosafety permit, addressed to the Department of Agriculture - Philippine Rice Research Institute (DA-PhilRice) and International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), details the approval of GR2E golden rice for direct use as food and feed, or for processing (FFP).

(.....)

Not tested for safety

In spite of these opinions, no animal feeding studies have been released to the public that could attest to the food safety of this GM rice. Human trials have focused on efficacy (ability of the subjects to absorb the beta-carotene in the rice) and not safety. So claims of food safety are assumptions that are not evidence-based.

In a sly move characteristic of the GM proponents including the various agencies in the Joint Department Circular (JDC), the direct use for food, feed and processing of the genetically modified (GM) Golden Rice has been approved on December 10 despite the staunch opposition from farmers and consumers in the Philippines. MASIPAG condemns the Golden Rice approval and the collusion among the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Philippine Rice Research Institute (Philrice) and the Dept. of Agriculture-Bureau of Plant Industry (DA-BPI) which gravely threatens not only the health of the people and the environment, but also the future of rice production and farmers’ control of seeds.

Farmers and consumers in the Philippines and in other countries as well, remain adamant that Golden Rice will not address the Vitamin A Deficiency among vulnerable sectors in developing countries, but is in fact a tool of the increasing corporate control over agriculture. By harking on the humanitarian packaging of the Golden Rice, and marketing it as ‘Healthier Rice,’ proponents are deceiving and blinding the people from the ulterior intention of Golden Rice which is to usher in more genetically modified food such as soybean, cotton, potato and more varieties of GM corn. According to IRRI’s website, research is also being conducted on high-iron and zinc rice in response to iron-deficiency anemia and stunting.

When it comes to GMOs in food, there is a strong alliance between food retailers and consumers. Consumers do not want GMOs in their food, and food retailers do not want to sell any. Leading European retailers have developed “non-GMO” and organic product lines in response to consumer demand for non-GMO products in the conventional and organic sector. Both product lines represent sustainability, transparency and quality.

But recent developments at EU level and in several member states might challenge the strategy, business model and financial results of food retailers: It is highly likely that the new EU Commission will make a proposal for the deregulation of products obtained with new genetic engineering – and food retailers could suffer tremendously from this development.

Gene Drive Organisms are built to intentionally spread their implanted traits through an entire population and could easily be designed to cause a whole species to become extinct or replaced. So far this ‘exterminator technology’ has never been tested in a natural, or even semi-natural environment but the day of GDO release is coming.

This report explains what Gene Drives are, who is behind them, and what rights and tools communities in Africa have to stop them.

The European Parliament has voted against plans to authorise the import of four varieties of genetically-modified crops.

Passed with a significant majority, the non-binding resolutions call on the European Commission to withdraw draft decisions that authorise the import of four varieties of cotton, soy and maize.

These GMOs have been made tolerant to glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium, both herbicides, meaning they can be exposed to repeated doses without suffering damage. Citing a number of scientific studies, MEPs warned that as a result they could lead to higher quantity of pesticide residues in the harvest.

The Parliament also criticised the Commission for the continuing to authorise imported genetically-modified products despite objections from member states and MEPs.

In October MEPs had passed similar non-binding motions opposing three other herbicide-resistant GMOs.

The Federal Government and Labor Party have submitted Australians to a nationwide genetic experiment, by failing to support a Greens’ motion disallowing amendments to the Gene Technology Regulations. The amendments allow most animals, plants and microbes modified using CRISPR and similar techniques to be released into the environment and food chain without any risk assessment.

The changes effectively turn Australia – our ecosystems and our health – into a giant genetic engineering experiment.

Last week the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) wrote to all Australian Senators urging them to disallow recent amendments to the Gene Technology Regulations. A number of Australian Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBCs) have also called for regulation on safety grounds. These include the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research IBC, Victoria University IBC, Children’s Medical Research Institute and Children’s Hospital Westmead IBC, and the University of Wollongong IBC.

ETC will be occasionally chatting with collaborators, activists and experts about emerging technologies. Check for the ETC podcast on iTunes, Google Play, or other podcast services. A full list of episodes can be found at etcgroup.libsyn.com In Episode #1 ETC's Tom Wakeford speaks with Ugandan lawyer and advocate Barbara Ntambirweki about gene drives, a powerful new genetic technology that can change species in the wild and make species go extinct.

Gene editing and RNA interference are powerful new genetic engineering techniques with no history of safe use. We believe that when these techniques are applied to living organisms, they should be regulated in the same way as other genetic modification (GM) techniques – including any null segregant products. There is no guarantee that the use of these techniques will result in predictable outcomes – or that any resulting products will be safe. Furthermore, we are deeply concerned that deregulation of some processes will result in the use of these techniques on living organisms in the open environment – a practice without precedent or a history of safe use.

On 13th November, the Australian Senate will vote on whether to disallow amendments to the Gene Technology Regulations that deregulate a number of gene editing and RNA interference techniques. We strongly encourage Senators to support the disallowance motion, on the basis that it accurately reflects the current state of the science behind gene editing and gene silencing.

The Environment Committee today opposed the Commission’s plans to authorise the import of products containing four glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium resistant GMOs, in a vote on Wednesday.

The Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee of the European Parliament today opposed the European Commission’s plans to authorise the import of products containing four herbicide-resistant GMOs and calls on the Commission to withdraw its draft implementing decisions on these products. This follows the decision of Plenary 10 October 2019 to oppose three other herbicide-resistant GMOs.

The authorisations cover the import of products containing or consisting of GMOs cotton LLCotton25[1], soybean MON 89788[2], maize MON 89034 including sub-combinations[3] and maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × 1507 × 5307 × GA21 including sub-combinations[4].

These GMOs have been made tolerant to glyphosate-based and glufosinate ammonium-based herbicides. MEPs say that a number of studies show that such GM crops result in a higher use of weed killers. The crop may be exposed to repeated doses, which potentially lead to higher quantity of residues in the harvest, they say.

The EU should give higher priority to the protection of health and the environment, but when it comes to genetically engineered plants, the current standards of risk assessment are not sufficient to fulfil the legal requirements, writes Christoph Then, executive director at Testbiotech.

(.....)

Currently, more than 70 genetically engineered plants have approval for import into the EU. Most of these plants have more than one trait. One typical example is maize “SmartStax“, developed and marketed by Monsanto (Bayer) and DowDupont (Corteva): it produces six insecticidal Bt toxins and is tolerant to several herbicides.

The gaps in current risk assessment can be exemplified by the fact that this maize was allowed for import into the EU without a single feeding study with the whole food and feed to assess its potential health effects.

There is a long list of gaps in EFSA risk assessment.