10 examples
Gene Drive - intervention in the "germline" of natural diversity
previous pauseresume next

Genetically engineered hornless cattle: flaws in the genome overlooked

New techniques for genetic engineering not as precise as claimed

6 August 2019 / According to research undertaken by experts at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), gene-editing errors in the genome of the animals are, in many cases, often being overlooked. This was the finding from the FDA genome analyses of cattle genetically engineered not to grow horns. The animals were genetically engineered by Recombinetics; the company also filed a patent on the genetically engineered cattle. The cattle have for some years been held up and presented as a positive example for the application of new genetic engineering techniques.

EU Commission gives green light for approval of seven new genetically engineered plants

Outgoing EU Commission approves controversial applications for import before handing over

1 August 2019 / The EU Commission has given market approval to seven new genetically engineered (GE) plants. These include approvals for the import of GE maize, cotton and soybeans that are herbicide-resistant and produce insecticidal toxins. In March 2019, Testbiotech, together with around 40 organisations, called on the EU Commission to halt the approval processes because health risks from consuming products derived from the plants were not sufficiently assessed.

Honey bees – nature conservation with genetic engineering?

Gene scissor CRISPR being used to produce pesticide-resistant honey bees
Wednesday, 3 July 2019

In February 2019, the first paper on using CRISPR technology to produce pesticide-resistant honeybees was published in South Korea. Ostensibly, this is intended to ‘protect’ the bees from insecticides. This is further not just a one-off case: more and more stakeholders are interested in promoting genetically engineered organisms to ‘protect’ endangered species. Ultimately, it means that wild populations might be replaced by genetically ‘optimised’ organisms.

EU Commissioner Andriukaitis sacrifices science to trade interests

Reply from the Commission to the letter sent by civil society organisations ignores concerns about the safety of genetically engineered plants

28 June 2019 / The EU Commission has replied to a joint letter sent by more than 40 organisations from science, environmental protection, lobby control, food production and agriculture. The organisations were warning about the outgoing EU Commission might approve around a dozen genetically engineered plants on the basis of scientifically unacceptable risk assessment. However, the reply received from the cabinet of Commissioner Andriukaitis simply states that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has sole responsibility for risk assessment. This claim is simply incorrect.


Alle | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009