THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE INFORMATION SERVICE
Dear Friends and Colleagues
Organic Agriculture Maintains Its Exclusion of All GM Technologies
The US National Organic Standards Board has voted unanimously to update US organic standards to exclude ingredients derived from next generation genetic engineering and gene editing (Item 1). This recommendation to the US Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program will ensure that ingredients derived from new genetic engineering techniques, including synthetic biology, will not be allowed in the production or final product of foods and beverages that are certified organic. Like “traditional” GMOs,synthetic biology ingredients are entering food and consumer products in absence of adequate health and environmental safety assessment, oversight and labeling. The Board’s announcement follows a growing trend of companies stating that they will not use ingredients produced via synthetic biology.
A recently published journal paper provides support for this trend (Item 2). According to the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), the intentional use of genetic modification is, in principle, excluded from organic systems. However, proponents of agricultural biotechnology have been calling for a reconsideration of the organic opposition to GMOs in light of new plant breeding techniques (NPBTs). Notwithstanding this, IFOAM Europe recently released a public position statement calling for these NPBTs to be recognised as GM and regulated as such.
This paper found that given the history of experience with existing GMOs, the in-context-trajectory of biotechnology development, the continued narrow framing of agricultural problems, and the ongoing exclusion of important socio-economic, political and cultural dimensions, NPBTs are unlikely to gain favour within organic movements given the criteria highlighted as important by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) in its 2016 draft revised position on GMOs. The researchers conclude that, on this basis, the organic movement should maintain its opposition to GM in the face of NPBTs.
With best wishes,
Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister
10400 Penang
Malaysia
Email: twn@twnetwork.org
Websites: https://biosafety-info.net/and http://www.twn.my/
To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net
____________________________________________________________________________
Item 1
ORGANIC STANDARDS WILL EXCLUDE NEXT GENERATION OF GMOS
Posted by: Kate Colwell
http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/2016-11-organic-standards-will-exclude-next-generation-of-gmos
Washington, D.C. – The National Organic Standards Board voted unanimously on Friday to update U.S. organic standards to exclude ingredients derived from next generation genetic engineering and gene editing.
This recommendation to the US Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program will ensure that ingredients derived from new genetic engineering techniques, including synthetic biology, will not be allowed in the production or final product of foods and beverages that are certified organic. Synthetic biology is a new set of genetic engineering techniques that include using synthetic DNA to re-engineer organisms to produce substances they would not normally produce or to edit DNA so as to silence the expression of certain traits.
“The Board’s hard-fought proactive stance on synthetic biology will both help preserve the integrity of organic standards and raise awareness about this virtually unregulated and unlabeled form of genetic engineering,” said Dana Perls, food and technology policy campaigner with Friends of the Earth. “It’s critical that organic standards treat new types of genetic engineering that are rapidly entering our food and consumer products as rigorously as the first generation of GMOs.”
Like “traditional” GMOs, synthetic biology ingredients are entering food and consumer products in absence of adequate health and environmental safety assessment, oversight and labeling. Many are being falsely marketed as “natural.” Products in development include synthetic biology stevia, saffron, coconut and cacao, meant to replace plant-based ingredients, many of which are currently produced by small farmers in the Global South. There is increasing concern that these farmers’ livelihoods may be displaced by synthetic biology ingredients. Other products include gene-silenced apples, CRISPR waxy corn and Cibus Canola oil, engineered with gene editing techniques.
“The definition of Excluded Methods in the USDA Organic Regulations was written in 1995,” said Zea Sonnabend, Fruitilicious Farm and NOSB scientist representative. “With so many new technologies being developed since then that continue to challenge both regulation and agro-ecology, the NOSB felt is was important to provide a structure to clarify the original definition so that organic consumers can be assured that their food does not contain GMOs.”
“The National Organic Standards Board has made clear that all kinds of genetic engineering are to be excluded from ‘organic.’ The public expects that government to actually assess the new foods that it is permitting on the market,” said Jaydee Hanson, senior policy analyst, Center for Food Safety. “Unfortunately, the government has failed to update its regulations to adequately assess these new kinds of genetically engineering. When the USDA approves that NOSB recommendations, consumers who want to avoid GMOs will be able to use the Organic Seal to know that the product is not a GMO.”
The Board’s announcement follows a growing trend of companies stating that they will not use ingredients produced via synthetic biology. The Non-GMO Project, North America’s only third party verification program for non-GMO food and products, recently updated its standards so as to include synthetic biology and new gene editing techniques. Companies such as Ben and Jerry’s (BJICA: US), Three Twins Ice Cream, Straus Family Creamery, Luna & Larry’s Coconut Bliss, Nestlé (NSRGY: OTC US), and General Mills (NYSE: GIS) have committed to “…not source vanilla flavor produced through synthetic biology,” a product that is designed to replace natural vanillin flavoring from vanilla beans. Synthetic biology vanilla flavoring, introduced by Evolva (SWX: EVE) and International Flavors and Fragrances (NYSE: IFF) in 2014, is the first major synthetic biology ingredient to enter food and beverages, marketed as “natural vanillin.” Other companies that have pledged to avoid synthetic biology ingredients entirely include Nutiva and Dr. Bronner’s.
Synthetic biology employs a new set of genetic engineering techniques that involve artificially constructing or “editing” genetic material such as DNA in order to create new forms of life, or to attempt to “reprogram” existing organisms. Despite growing concerns about the possible impacts of synthetic biology organisms on human health and the environment and a lack of independent safety assessment, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has allowed synthetic biology vanilla, DuPont’s CRISPR waxy corn and other similarly created food and cosmetic ingredients to enter the market without regulation. Existing regulations that identify GE crops and food ingredients as “Generally Regarded As Safe” use an outdated process with minimal testing requirements that rely on companies to self-evaluate the safety of their products.
Item 2
SHOULD ORGANIC AGRICULTURE MAINTAIN ITS OPPOSITION TO GM? NEW TECHNIQUES WRITING THE SAME OLD STORY
Fern Wickson, Rosa Binimelis and Amaranta Herrero
Sustainability 2016, 8(11), 1105; doi:10.3390/su8111105
http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/11/1105
Abstract
Biotechnology is diversifying rapidly through the development and application of new approaches to genome editing and ongoing research into synthetic biology. Proponents of biotechnology are enthusiastic about these new developments and have recently begun calling for environmental movements to abandon their campaigns against Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and for organic agriculture to reconsider its exclusion of Genetic Modification (GM). In this article, we begin by describing the diversity of practices that cluster under both the terms GM and organic and show that although there is a clash of different cultures of agriculture at stake, there is also a spectrum of practices existing between these two poles. Having established the terms of the debate, we then go on to analyse whether the organic movement should reconsider its position on GM in light of new plant breeding techniques (NPBTs), using the criteria highlighted as important by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) in their 2016 draft revised position on GMOs. Through this analysis, we suggest that given the in-context-trajectory of biotechnology development, the continued narrow framing of agricultural problems and the ongoing exclusion of important socio-economic, political and cultural dimensions, the organic movement is justified in maintaining its opposition to GM in the face of NPBTs.