**Controls could be eased on plants ranging from wheat able to withstand drought to fungus-resistant tomatoes**
Brussels plans to lift controls on some genetically modified crops to help farmers cope with climate change in a move likely to reignite a Europe-wide debate about the controversial techniques.
A draft EU regulation seen by the Financial Times proposes that many modified plants should be approved as conventional rather than go through the bloc’s existing GMO regime, which is laborious and expensive.
The plan would establish a category of plants that have used gene editing to create new varieties but could have been achieved through traditional breeding techniques. They include wheat that can withstand drought, tomatoes resistant to fungus and potatoes containing less acrylamide, which becomes carcinogenic when fried.
EU officials say the new techniques are vital to maintain crop yields as farmers contend with changing weather patterns, such as drought and floods. They would also reduce the use of pesticides, fertilisers and other chemicals. The proposal could still be changed before being put forward by the European Commission on July 5.
“The science and the evidence show that these can be achieved also through conventional breeding of crops,” said an EU official.
“The economic rationale is very strong. If we want to cope with climate change and support food security we need these techniques.”
The proposal sets out different regulatory options but favours a light-touch regime for most new plant varieties — which would be “treated similarly to conventional plants and would not require authorisation, risk assessment, traceability and labelling as GMOs”. A transparency register would be established for these plants, according to the draft.
Gene editing is a form of engineering in which genes can be deleted or added from the same or similar species, accelerating a traditional process where scientists blend different species of plant. An example would be splicing a variety of wheat with a large ear, leading to high yields, with one with a thick stem, making it more resistant to wind.
It is distinct from genetic modification, which introduces DNA from foreign species.
Plants using gene editing that could not arise naturally would require full GMO authorisation. However, “measures would be introduced to incentivise plant products that could contribute to a sustainable agri-food system”, and crops judged as such would not have to carry a GMO label.
Only a handful of GMOs have been authorised in the EU, mainly to feed animals, because of public and political opposition to so-called Frankenfoods.
the biggest problem with gmo’s is not health risks but the fact that each type of seed constitutes intellectual property, so patent rights apply
if the eu wants to loosen the current restrictions it needs to also loosen ip rights cause if it doesn’t it will likely just become dependent on foreign suppliers again
How many of those drought resistant plants do actually exist and how efficient are they actually? How many other measures of drought handling do farmers have available and what costs and risk do they have?
Late is better than never.
GMOs are the best way to reduce the use of pesticides.
What about the health risks?
No, let’s be honest! The EU will do anything to get some money flowing in, nothing better than sweetening the deals for those lobbies. We don’t need GMOs, why the EU is always the retarded continent that sees others progressing but has to make the same mistakes as others did, and doesn’t learn by watching!
To me, the opposition to GMOs, like much of the environmental movement, is almost religious in nature. GMOs are the future and are good, especially if you want to feed the poor affordably.
Maybe subsidize farming, oh no, that would impact the environment.
Very good
Thank fuck took long enough. It is one of my primary issues with the EU.
😀
For me, the biggest issue with GMO crops is not health or proprietary rights, but ecology.
And here, i am not thinking so much about pesticides, but on giving selective advantageous traits to home grown plants. When they escape the plantation fields, they might become invasive and push out the autochtonous flora. And on the other side, if companies try to fight it with terminator seeds, they might blackmail farmers from season to season.
I dont think i ve heard there was implementation of some idea how to prevent it. But then again, i havent been reading about GMO plants recently.
This has been a gradual unshackling from activist lobbyist for the past years. The GMO debate was lost by the purity driven loonies and the politicians could move to follow the science instead of being scared of marches against boogeymen
Allright,
Plant breeders already have a specific patent called plant variety rights (pvp or breeder’s rights) which allows for the companies that invest into breeding to benefit from selling their own variety, but in Europe this kind of patent does not limit other companies from crossing with that variety.
Other type of patents (general patents) which everybody knows, are used to protect the varieties from being crossed with, and generaly try to protect also the parents of the cross. Because this types of the patents are way more expensive than the pvp, only bigger companies like Basef/Monsanto, Syngenta etc can affor them, thus locking out smaller companies from using their germplasm.
The USA plant rights already prohibit somewhat more other companies from crossing with the protected plant varieties, and also more traits like natural traits (genes) are patentable, which is not good because those genes are naturally occuring (sometimes) or can be brought from a different crop (gene editing).
There are many crops where gene editing does not solve a lot of issues besides being a very good cash cow for the companies.
As long as farmers can keep their seeds and replant them, and the produce is clearly marked as GMO, then I have no problem with this.
Genetically modified crops are just as healthy as non genetically modified. The conspiracy theorists who try to say otherwise are just as bad as the anti vaxxers who blame every single death post vaccination on the vax. Lol
A solution to the effect of climate change, instead of acting against climate change itself. Cannot go wrong.
18 comments
Article:
**Controls could be eased on plants ranging from wheat able to withstand drought to fungus-resistant tomatoes**
Brussels plans to lift controls on some genetically modified crops to help farmers cope with climate change in a move likely to reignite a Europe-wide debate about the controversial techniques.
A draft EU regulation seen by the Financial Times proposes that many modified plants should be approved as conventional rather than go through the bloc’s existing GMO regime, which is laborious and expensive.
The plan would establish a category of plants that have used gene editing to create new varieties but could have been achieved through traditional breeding techniques. They include wheat that can withstand drought, tomatoes resistant to fungus and potatoes containing less acrylamide, which becomes carcinogenic when fried.
EU officials say the new techniques are vital to maintain crop yields as farmers contend with changing weather patterns, such as drought and floods. They would also reduce the use of pesticides, fertilisers and other chemicals. The proposal could still be changed before being put forward by the European Commission on July 5.
“The science and the evidence show that these can be achieved also through conventional breeding of crops,” said an EU official.
“The economic rationale is very strong. If we want to cope with climate change and support food security we need these techniques.”
The proposal sets out different regulatory options but favours a light-touch regime for most new plant varieties — which would be “treated similarly to conventional plants and would not require authorisation, risk assessment, traceability and labelling as GMOs”. A transparency register would be established for these plants, according to the draft.
Gene editing is a form of engineering in which genes can be deleted or added from the same or similar species, accelerating a traditional process where scientists blend different species of plant. An example would be splicing a variety of wheat with a large ear, leading to high yields, with one with a thick stem, making it more resistant to wind.
It is distinct from genetic modification, which introduces DNA from foreign species.
Plants using gene editing that could not arise naturally would require full GMO authorisation. However, “measures would be introduced to incentivise plant products that could contribute to a sustainable agri-food system”, and crops judged as such would not have to carry a GMO label.
Only a handful of GMOs have been authorised in the EU, mainly to feed animals, because of public and political opposition to so-called Frankenfoods.
the biggest problem with gmo’s is not health risks but the fact that each type of seed constitutes intellectual property, so patent rights apply
if the eu wants to loosen the current restrictions it needs to also loosen ip rights cause if it doesn’t it will likely just become dependent on foreign suppliers again
How many of those drought resistant plants do actually exist and how efficient are they actually? How many other measures of drought handling do farmers have available and what costs and risk do they have?
Late is better than never.
GMOs are the best way to reduce the use of pesticides.
What about the health risks?
No, let’s be honest! The EU will do anything to get some money flowing in, nothing better than sweetening the deals for those lobbies. We don’t need GMOs, why the EU is always the retarded continent that sees others progressing but has to make the same mistakes as others did, and doesn’t learn by watching!
To me, the opposition to GMOs, like much of the environmental movement, is almost religious in nature. GMOs are the future and are good, especially if you want to feed the poor affordably.
Maybe subsidize farming, oh no, that would impact the environment.
Very good
Thank fuck took long enough. It is one of my primary issues with the EU.
😀
For me, the biggest issue with GMO crops is not health or proprietary rights, but ecology.
And here, i am not thinking so much about pesticides, but on giving selective advantageous traits to home grown plants. When they escape the plantation fields, they might become invasive and push out the autochtonous flora. And on the other side, if companies try to fight it with terminator seeds, they might blackmail farmers from season to season.
I dont think i ve heard there was implementation of some idea how to prevent it. But then again, i havent been reading about GMO plants recently.
This has been a gradual unshackling from activist lobbyist for the past years. The GMO debate was lost by the purity driven loonies and the politicians could move to follow the science instead of being scared of marches against boogeymen
Allright,
Plant breeders already have a specific patent called plant variety rights (pvp or breeder’s rights) which allows for the companies that invest into breeding to benefit from selling their own variety, but in Europe this kind of patent does not limit other companies from crossing with that variety.
Other type of patents (general patents) which everybody knows, are used to protect the varieties from being crossed with, and generaly try to protect also the parents of the cross. Because this types of the patents are way more expensive than the pvp, only bigger companies like Basef/Monsanto, Syngenta etc can affor them, thus locking out smaller companies from using their germplasm.
The USA plant rights already prohibit somewhat more other companies from crossing with the protected plant varieties, and also more traits like natural traits (genes) are patentable, which is not good because those genes are naturally occuring (sometimes) or can be brought from a different crop (gene editing).
There are many crops where gene editing does not solve a lot of issues besides being a very good cash cow for the companies.
As long as farmers can keep their seeds and replant them, and the produce is clearly marked as GMO, then I have no problem with this.
Genetically modified crops are just as healthy as non genetically modified. The conspiracy theorists who try to say otherwise are just as bad as the anti vaxxers who blame every single death post vaccination on the vax. Lol
A solution to the effect of climate change, instead of acting against climate change itself. Cannot go wrong.
Finally.