Following our panel discussion ‘Can Organic GMOs ever be a ‘thing’? held at Natural and Organic Products Europe in London in April, two of our panellists continued their discussion and […]
This week an unusually diverse group of stakeholders gathered together to discuss a rapidly developing issue in animal agriculture – gene edited livestock. The day-long roundtable meeting, which was co-hosted […]
A group of 18 scientists and bioethicists from seven countries has called for a “global moratorium” on all clinical uses of human germline editing to ‘re-engineer’ humans.
How do we regulate gene-edited animals? It’s not a new question but it’s one that is gaining urgency as biotechnology companies turn their attention to intentional alterations in animal genomes.
Uncertainties can make it hard to plan ahead. But recognising them can help to reveal new questions and choices. What kinds of uncertainty are there, why do they matter for sustainability, and what ideas, approaches and methods can help us to respond to them?
How do we deal with the increasing polarisation in the GMO debate? Care ethics, a theme coming from ecofeminism, allows, according to the authors, to assess technologies “not simply as devices designed to create a certain end experience for a user, but as transformative systems that smuggle in numerous social and political interests”
The new USDA label for genetically engineered foods has failed to make anyone – whatever their views or opinions about GE foods – happy. WHat’s more, that many foods (including many packaged foods) will be excluded from its purview.
Corporate lobbyists argue that the innovation principle would boost innovations that could be used to tackle problems facing the planet such as decreasing the impact of animal feed on the planet, while civil society groups believe it leaves regulations vulnerable to corporate lobbyists and worry that it spells the end of the Precautionary Principle – which ensures only safe products reach the EU market.