Public comment is sought on US proposals that could have broad-reaching implications for the use of gene editing to pursue agricultural innovations. Some researchers say there is no scientific justification for the strict regulatory proposals.
The need to develop a fair regulatory framework for crop biotechnology — especially new gene editing techniques — was an important take-away from the 14th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (ISBGMO), which just ended in Guadalajara, Mexico.
Though activists like to claim that GMO crops are unregulated, a great deal of work goes into assessing their environmental risk and developing mechanisms for their safe release and use, as Sol Guerrero Ortiz reports from the International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (ISBGMO).
Opening day speakers at the International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (ISBGMO) played on the theme of this year’s event — "Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms: past, present and future" — by highlighting the importance of reflecting on the past and what we have learned from it; assessing the current state of GMO research; and looking forward to the future with new plant breeding techniques.
Speakers at International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (ISBGMO) in Guadalajara, Mexico, urge scientists to find ways to make the science, benefits and safety protocols associated with agricultural biotechnology understandable by everyone.
Public sector researchers in India are seeking support for the approval of genetically engineered, disease-resistant oilseed mustard, which could boost yields and incomes for local farmers while reducing imports.
The GMO debate in China has been as fractious and polarizing as anywhere, dominated by fear and conspiracy theories that flourish in spite of the state-controlled media.
Bolstered by a solid and functional biosafety framework, Malawi is one of the few countries in Africa poised to move forward in commercializing genetically modified crops, with cotton, cowpea and banana now in field trials.
The Non-GMO Project is sowing doubts about the safety of GM products to increase sales of its verified products. It should not be allowed to make those false statements. In addition, with its unscientific perspective on GMOs, the Non-GMO Project seal should not become the default national marketplace standard for non-GMO product verification. The federal government needs to establish a national definition of “non-GMO” and oversee how that term is used.