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?
Although not directly about genetic engineering in food and farming the article brings up pertinent themes about control of narrative, and therefore practice, regarding the use of antimicrobials in farming – and the need for a more inclusive conversation around the issues.
As universities rely more on industry for funds, researchers taking a stand on health or environment say they’re sidelined. The Guardian newspaper delves into the influence that corporate money can have on academics and scientists, and therefore the accepted framing and narratives around global problems – and proposed solutions.
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”
A new survey claims to show that GM food opponents are ignorant extremists. That’s how it’s being spun- with , arguably, too much enthusiasm – in the media but does the evidence for a dumb public with nothing to add to the GMO debate really stand up?
We have reached peak gene, and passed it and, according to Ken Richardson author of Genes, Brains and Human Potential: The Science and Ideology of Intelligence, we are not nearly as determined by our genes as once thought.
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.