|
|
|
|
Submissions close 4pm Friday.
Please make a submission to include
'New Breeding Techniques' (NBTs)
and future forms of GMOs in FSANZ Definitions
for continued Regulation.
FSANZ Proposal P1055 –
Definitions for gene technology and new breeding techniques
Deadline 3 December – 4pm NZ time
Please make a submission on FSANZ's proposals for changes in Definitions that will effectively deregulate new forms of Genetic Engineering.
Under the term 'New Breeding Techniques' (NBT) some foods produced with existing (and future) Gene Editing techniques will be exempt from safety evaluation required for GMO foods. In the consultation document FSANZ wrongly conclude that more targeted Gene Editing means products from NBTs need no oversight for safety. FSANZ believe the use of a Gene Editing process is irrelevant for safety purposes if the end product is 'the same', concluding that current and future NBT products require no additional oversight.
This view is flawed and ignores important lessons from current peer reviewed science on unpredicted and off-target effects in the gene repairs in NBTs. FSANZ trusts that in future the developers of NBT plants and animals will effectively screen Gene Editing products before release, as companies have done in the past for conventional breeding. But this ignores the emerging risks that many other users of 'cheap, new' Gene Editing techniques may not necessarily be competent. FSANZ's approach is a loss of control of food safety and the integrity of the food supply, with negative impacts for consumers, producers, farmers, exporters and public health.
See the documents:
https://www.foodstandards.govt.nz/code/proposals/Pages/p1055-definitions-for-gene-technology-and-new-breeding-techniques.aspx
Submission GUIDE - - Include your name and contact details
- email
submissions@foodstandards.gov.au
- online
https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/changes/submission/Pages/SubmissionForm.aspx
For more details, see below or click here to go to our GEFree NZ Action Page
Together, we must keep NZ GE/GMO Free.
Nga mihi,
Claire Bleakley, President
|
|
Submission to FSANZ on Proposal P1055 -
Definitions and the Need for Continued Regulation of current and future New Breeding Techniques (NBTs)
-
We have suggested a definition - Gene technology: The use of genomic technologies to delete, replace, or insert RNA/DNA sequences, altering the heritable genetic material of living cells or organisms.
-
Future gene technology processes of Gene Editing in NBTs are substantially different from conventional breeding and thus need regulatory oversight of safety
-
Similarity of a product of NBT to a conventional bred product is inadequate to justify exemption of the NBT product. Unexpected genomic changes may have occurred but safety implications would not be considered and assumed always to be negligible
-
FSANZ should keep 'process' as their trigger and should not exempt any more NBT products from risk assessment by simply 'redefining' the inconvenient as ‘not gene technology’ (as led to FSANZ exemption for SDN-1
-
I oppose FSANZ's previous exemption of 'SDN1' products from safety regulations and further exemptions being made
-
FSANZ should keep a more expansive process-based trigger eject the exemptions, (and not use the flawed USDA definition which undermines this)
-
Gene Editing techniques are new and rely on cell processes of gene repair that are not yet fully understood. FSANZ and industry views that this is precise and controlled is not necessarily the case, with unexpected outcomes from the NBT processes
-
FSANZ believe the use of a Gene Editing process is irrelevant for safety purposes if the end product is 'the same', concluding that current and future NBT products require no additional oversight. This view is flawed and ignores important lessons from current peer reviewed science on unpredicted and off-target effects in the gene repairs in NBTs.
-
FSANZ mentions, but fails to accept the importance of unexpected changes such as those in Gene Edited Polled Cows found after commercialisation. FSANZ are wrong to accept such risks (based on hope of later remediation to remove the unwanted genetic material
-
The lesson for food safety is that the PROCESS must trigger oversight for unexpected changes. This is important for food safety where issues cannot be remediated or are only identified after commercial release as a risk to public health.
-
Future NBTs may also have different process and potential disruptions of genomes and also cannot be exempted from regulation
-
FSANZ has erred in approving all previous applications for GMO foods as 'overwhelmingly' safe, without requiring safety testing. Exemptions must not be made that weaken this even further
The changing environment of Gene Editing as 'cheap', 'fast', 'easy' (and official assumptions that they are precise and without safety relevance) is expanding the range of risk
-
Gene Editing NBTs are promoted as more targeted than mutagenesis but should also be recognised to potentially much more disruptive of the genome than mutagenesis by the capacity to override preserved areas of the genome that are for some reason resistant to damage through mutagenesis.
-
FSANZ proposal to rely on producers to screen products for undesirable qualities is wholly inadequate and makes the future food system vulnerable
-
Commercial pressure for innovation is creating a new level of risk appetite for NBTs to be rapidly deployed and costs reduced by exempting them from regulatory oversight, safety evaluation, tracking/labelling, and liability
-
The public do not want these risks to be ignored or transferred from the producer/ manufacturer to the consumer, farmers or the environment
-
A mandatory register of products from NBTs processes will support Intellectual Property systems, downstream tracking and research across government and civil society to monitor and understand the impact of novel introductions into the existing varied gene pool
Action required for future food safety:
- Use of NBT processes should trigger safety oversight of all Gene Editing products, including those similar to conventional breeding.
- NBTs as defined in FSANZ's proposal must not be given exemptions and must be subject to case by case safety evaluation.
- NBT products should require genome sequencing and inclusion of the product on a register
- The data must be used to allow 'Omics' safety evaluation in order to identify areas of concern or further action needed, prior to any approval by FSANZ
- FSANZ's previous exemption of SDN1 products should be reversed.
|
|
GE FREE NZ PRESS RELEASES:
presented by:
- Claire Bleakley, President 027 348 6731
- Jon Carapiet, National Spokesman 0210507681
- Jon Muller, Secretary 027 479 4195
Full press release & all references can be found on there links provided with each article.
|
|
|
09/11/2021
Using Genetic Engineering (GE) technologies such as gene editing for predator control to drive population collapse or extinction, poses unknown dangers and much suffering. [1] Scientists have openly expressed concerns about the ability to control gene trait transfer to other animals potentially leading to devastating indigenous species collapse and loss of biodiversity. [2]
There is evidence to show that the alarming levels of suffering in Genetically Engineered (GE) animal experiments conducted by AgResearch. These are continuing despite years of failure across multiple projects as recorded in AgResearch annual report to the EPA. [3]
Full press release with references: https://press.gefree.org.nz/press/20211119.htm
|
|
New GE Impossible Burger Should Carry Warning label
10/11/2021
The Impossible Foods Company is spending thousands of dollars to promote its recently launched imitation GM meat in New Zealand. The imitation patties contain a range of GM ingredients.[1] The most controversial is soy leghemoglobin “blood” manufactured from GMO yeast, which comes along with 46 contaminating yeast proteins, all of which are new to the food supply and never before consumed by humans.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) have relied on the industry’s evaluation of their tests, which was limited to two short term rat feeding studies, of 14 days and 28 days. An independent analysis of these feeding studies by molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, (PhD) and Claire Robinson (MPhil), found unexplained changes in weight gain and signs of potential toxicity in the 28-day rodent study. [2]
Full press release with references: https://press.gefree.org.nz/press/20211110.htm
|
|
|
18/06/2021
New Zealand must heed concerns of the International Union for Conservation Of Nature (IUCN) calling for global consultation on Synthetic Biology.
The IUCN resolution to ensure that global consultation on Synthetic Biology (SBGE) is undertaken calls into question the policies of Ministries in New Zealand, which actively oppose this high-level consultation and are considering relaxing safeguards.
The Convention on Biodiversity (COP) informal meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice (SBSTTA-24) recognised that synthetic biology and gene drives could have the potential to result in irreversible impacts on biodiversity.
Full press release with references: https://press.gefree.org.nz/press/20211002.htm
|
|
|
24/09/2021
Australians and New Zealanders of all cultures express concern that an approval of GR2 GE rice by New Zealand authorities is adding to the problem of bio-piracy and exploitation of indigenous people's knowledge and resources by biotech companies.
The GR2 Rice is genetically engineered and has recently been approved for commercialisation in the Philippines [1]. The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), with partner Syngenta, used a common rice variety developed by the people and inserted genes from daffodils, bacteria and viruses to create Yellow coloured rice in an effort to boost beta-carotene. The crosses to make the bio-pirated GE rice had negligible beta-carotene levels, were stunted, deformed and had low yield [2].
Full press release with references: https://press.gefree.org.nz/press/20210924.htm
|
|
* Regenerative Ag Expert Briefing *
Watch the recent two hours briefing held in Washington DC on 26 October
"Regenerative Agriculture: The Catalyst for Restoring Soil Health,
Combating Climate Change, And Creating Economic Resilience"
Climate change interventions, environmental legislation, and impactful environmental restoration practices typically begin with good intentions but end with divisive stalemates. The common thread that can drive economic resilience in the farming sector, combat climate change, and unify environmental initiatives, starts with regenerative agriculture.
Regenerative agriculture offers staggering benefits. This briefing will apply scientific strategies, tools, tactics, and procedures to environmental issues such as the Role of Regenerative Agriculture in: |
- Increasing farmer’s economic returns
- Combating Climate Change and Achieving Food Security
- Restoring and Preserving Soil Health
- Enhanced Environmental and Economic Resilience
Join Dr Jeffrey Smith, Dr Elaine Ingham & Tim LaSalle, PhD.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bnWixkJKc0
|
|
|
New resources to share on why gene editing must not be deregulated
Source: GMWatch 20 Oct 2021
Friends of the Earth Europe has published a package – a report, briefing, and short video – about the hyped claims that the new generation of genetically modified organisms are needed to fight the climate crisis.
The report, called "Editing the truth: Genome editing is not a solution to climate change", is both scientifically rigorous and highly accessible (and interesting) for the layperson.
However, the recent IPCC report left no room for doubt that the climate crisis is here now. Looking to gene technology for magical innovations that may or may not be developed in the future wastes time that we don’t have and raises more questions and risks than it resolves.
Please share the video widely on Twitter and Facebook.
Please also spread the news about the public consultation on the Inception Impact Assessment laying out the Commission's plans to deregulate gene editing (you can take quick and easy action here wherever you are in the world, whether within or outside the EU).
The efforts to develop these false solutions are diverting the conversation away from the huge climate-destroying "elephants in the room" – intensive agriculture and unsustainable mass production and consumption. An industry based on driving demand for environmentally damaging products can never be sustainable no matter how many genes are edited or cows are "optimised".
We don’t know the long-term impact of modifying genes of plants and animals through technologies like CRISPR. We don’t know when or if the technologies promised by biotech corporations will be ready or scaleable. We don’t know how genetically modified crops cope in different weather and soil conditions.
The EU Commission must take action, quickly, to support the real solutions and secure sustainable food and a liveable future.
__________________________________________________________
Website: http://www.gmwatch.org
Profiles: http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/GM_Watch:_Portal
Twitter: http://twitter.com/GMWatch
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/GMWatch/276951472985?ref=nf
Read more: https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19223
|
|
|
CRISPR gene editing causes whole chromosome loss
Source: GMWatch 19 Nov 2021
In another of a long line of studies showing unintended effects of gene editing, the CRISPR-Cas gene editing tool has been found to cause the loss of whole chromosomes and genomic instability in mouse embryos.
The finding is yet another nail in the coffin for human germline (heritable) gene editing with CRISPR, though there are plenty of people who persist in advocating it. The study comes hot on the heels of another, which found that editing human cells with CRISPR caused chromothripsis, an extremely damaging form of genomic rearrangement that results from the shattering of individual chromosomes and the subsequent rejoining of the pieces in a haphazard order.
The genetic material in certain (“eukaryotic”) microorganisms, plants, animals and humans exists in bundles known as “chromosomes”. In organisms that sexually reproduce (plants, animals, humans), two copies of each chromosome are inherited, one from each parent. Loss of a chromosome results in gene imbalance and function, leading to severe inherited diseases and is also frequently seen in cancer. So any procedure that induces chromosome loss is bad news and should be avoided.
\
Read more:
https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19934-crispr-gene-editing-causes-whole-chromosome-loss
|
|
|
Scientists find yet more genetic errors from CRISPR gene editing
Source: GMWatch 6 Nov 2021
Scientists at the University of Uppsala have found that CRISPR-Cas gene editing in zebrafish caused large structural changes at on-target and off-target sites (both at the intended edit site and elsewhere in the genome). Off-target sites can be very similar to the target site, which means that the "gene scissors" can also cut at these sites and cause specific unintended mutations. The publication, which is currently in pre-print format and has not yet been peer reviewed, shows that major unintended DNA changes are possible.
In the study, the scientists examined the genome of zebrafish after using CRISPR-Cas. They found that large structural changes (large insertions and deletions) had occurred at both the target sequence and at so-called off-target sites.
Read more:
https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19924-scientists-find-yet-more-genetic-errors-from-crispr-gene-editing
|
|
We would love it if you could help by contributing an AP, no matter how small, to keep us ticking over & provide much needed assistance to raising awarenesses & protecting our legislation.
Please help us continue to keep Aoetearoa GE Free. We utilise your donations towards whatever action is currently requiring attention.
bank account#: 06-0996-0521358-00
http://www.gefree.org.nz/join-ge-free-new-zealand/
|
|
|
Keep an eye out for this logo & encourage manufacturers
to get listed & use the logo.
The policy simply requires sourcing non-ge ingredients for their produce and non-ge feed for their livestock.
This is a policy not a guarantee to assure customers so should be easy to encourage all producer across the board.
More information here: http://gefreepolicy.com/
|
|
|
For more information about what you can do to help
please visit
gefree.org.nz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
