Calls for sustainability criteria for genome edited organisms are welcome and long overdue, but sustainability cannot be used as a substitute for risk assessment
The public wants gene-editing regulated – the government should listen
Anything can happen between now and the final version of the new Precision Breeding Bill. But government seems to have taken to heart the suggestion from last year’s Regulatory Horizons Council report to apply “creative use of guidelines, standards [and] policies” to see if it’s possible to get it right (or get away with it).
The AgroEcoTech Trap
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.
Survey: Genome editing – what are the consequences for agroecology?
During this year’s Oxford Real Farming Conference Global 21 we took the opportunity to conduct a short survey to ascertain which potential threats to agroecology from genome editing (GE) most […]
Survey: Genome editing in food and farming – the campaigning landscape
The results of our latest survey indicate that amongst the UK’s food and farming organisations, a new dynamic is at play which is less cohesive, less engaged, more cautious or hesitant than was expressed by many of these same groups in the early days of genetic engineering in agriculture.
A need to put farmers back into the discussion
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.