Technology isn’t values neutral and treating it as if it is diminishes discussions around innovation and appropriateness and diverts from much needed dialogue around sustainability and sufficiency.
The recent Defra public consultation on the regulation of genetic technologies suggested that gene editing was the same as ‘traditional plant breeding’. But, says Kathleen Garnett, if its patented its not traditional.
EU and UK attempts to change genome editing regulations could have opened the door to interesting, even productive discussions. Instead they have further entrenched the unhelpful polarisation of early GMO debates.
Framing genetic engineering as ‘natural’ fuels conflict and creates distractions in the discussions about the technology, says Jack Heinemann – including those around the newly commercialised techniques of genome editing and gene silencing.
While promising, techno solutions in agriculture also bring inevitable questions. A new report from IPES Food and ETC Group asks and whether such innovations free us from, or perpetuate, “agribusiness-as-usual”.
A new policy briefing from the Genome Editing and Agriculture: Policies, Practices and Public Perceptions (GEAP3) project discusses choices and dilemmas facing policy makers and societal stakeholders in the European Union and the United Kingdom asks bigger questions.
In September of this year, the first-ever public detection method for a gene-edited crop was announced. The new method detects a herbicide-tolerant (SU) rapeseed variety that was developed using gene […]
Panellists at our recent webinar Sense, Science and Sustainability tackled the question of genetic engineering in food and farming through a sustainability lens– leading to some surprising admissions. Co-hosted with […]
Our upcoming webinar brings together specialists from farming, campaigning, science, business and media for an in-depth discussion about whether gene editing is not just desirable but necessary if farming is to reach its goals of higher sustainability and better welfare.