The first-of-its-kind report provides context for this novel technology, poised to be applied to bacteria and other microbes that make up the earth’s living soils. The report offers insight into future trends, a summary of potential health, environmental, and socioeconomic risks, and policy recommendations that would ensure robust assessment and oversight as GE microbes increasingly move from experimental laboratories to the soil that is the backbone of America’s agriculture. 

“Genetically engineered soil microbes are fundamentally different from GE crops,” said Dana Perls, food and technology program manager at Friends of the Earth. “Microbes can share genetic material with each other far more readily than crops and can travel great distances on the wind, so the genetic modifications released inside GE microbes may move across species and geographic boundaries in unpredictable ways. The scale of release is also far larger, and the odds of containment far smaller, than for GE crops. An application of GE bacteria could release approximately 3 trillion genetically modified organisms every half an acre — that’s about how many GE corn plants there are in the entire U.S.” 

A handful of healthy soil contains more microbes than there are people on the planet. Soil ecosystems are marked by incredible complexity. Of the billions of species of microbes that make up the living soil, we scientifically understand the role and function of far less than one percent. These tiny creatures, such as bacteria and fungi, play a massive role in agriculture, regulating global carbon and nitrogen cycles, building soil structure, providing crops with immunity to pests and diseases, and unlocking nutrients in the soil so crops can thrive. The stakes are high — scientists are increasingly aware that healthy soil is central to regenerative agriculture and farmers’ ability to feed the world  in a changing climate. Soil is the basis of farmers’ resilience to droughts and floods, and it could help slow climate chaos by serving as a carbon sink.  

“Soil is the basis of human civilization — we depend on soil for 95 percent of the food we eat,” said Kendra Klein, PhD, deputy director of science for Friends of the Earth. “And yet, biotech companies are rushing to commercialize GE soil microbes with little scientific understanding of the potential consequences. The latest science shows that engineering organisms can result in unintended genetic mishaps. And there are rare but potentially disastrous risks of creating an invasive species or novel human pathogen. The release of GE microbes across millions of acres of farmland is an open-air genetic experiment that may have irreversible consequences. Once they are released, GE microbes cannot be recalled.” 

Expert contacts: Kendra Klein, (415) 350-5957, kklein@foe.org; Dana Perls, (510) 978-4425, dperls@foe.org 

Communications contact: Haven Bourque, haven@havenbmedia.com, 415-505-3473.  

The post New Genetically Engineered Soil Microbes Could Threaten Soil Health appeared first on Friends of the Earth.

The release of live genetically engineered microbes in agriculture represents an unprecedented open-air genetic experiment. The scale of release is far larger and the odds of containment far smaller than for genetically engineered crops.   

This report provides historical context for this novel technology, insight into future trends, a summary of potential risks, and policy recommendations that would ensure robust assessment and oversight as more genetically engineered microbes move from the lab to the field.  

Read the executive summary
Read the full report
Read the press release

What types of microbes are being genetically engineered for agriculture?  

Bacteria, viruses and fungi are being genetically engineered for agricultural uses with bacteria being the most common.   

Why are microbes important?  

Microbes are tiny living things that are found all around us — they live in water, soil, air and plants as well as in human and other animal bodies. A handful of healthy soil contains more microbes than there are people on the planet. Microbes play a fundamental role in agriculture, making nutrients available to plants and boosting crop immunity to pests and diseases. They are also major engines of soil carbon sequestration, which gives them a significant role in the soil’s potential to help mitigate climate change, conserve water resources, and build resilience to droughts and floods. 

What genetically engineered microbes have been commercialized for agriculture?  

At least two live GE microbes are already being used on millions of acres of U.S. farmland — a nitrogen-fixing GE bacteria from Pivot Bio called Proven® and BASF’s ‘2.0’ version of its Poncho®/VOTiVO® seed treatment, which combines a GE microbe that aims to improve plant health with a neonicotinoid insecticide and a non-GE microbial nematicide. The Environmental Protection Agency’s website states that it has registered eight GE microbes as pesticides. However, the regulatory system is marked by such a profound lack of transparency that there is no publicly available information on what they are or whether they have been commercialized. 

What are biologicals? 

Genetic engineering is not needed to harness the power of microbes. Hundreds of naturally-derived microbes — known as ‘biologicals’ — are available for use in agriculture already, as biostimulants to improve plant growth, biofertilizers to improve crop nutrition, and biopesticides to manage pests and diseases. Billions of unexplored microbes can be a source of discovery and benefit for generations to come without the use of genetic engineering.

Which pesticide companies are investing in biologicals? 

The global biologicals market is expected to nearly triple in a span of eight years to $29.31 billion by 2029. A major driver is the entry of the largest agrichemical companies — Bayer, Syngenta (ChemChina), Corteva (Dow-Dupont) and BASF. These companies have spent millions acquiring biologicals companies in recent years and now offer a range of biological products. 

We urgently need a shift in agriculture from the dominant chemical paradigm to a biological paradigm. Use of toxic chemical pesticides and fertilizers continues to rise, underpinning industrial agriculture systems that have devastating impacts on ecosystems, communities and public health. Biologicals may be able to play a significant role in helping farmers transition to organic and other ecologically regenerative and resilient systems. At the same time, the entry of massive agrichemical companies into the field, and their interest in genetically engineering microbes, raises red flags. The creation and distribution of genetically engineered crops has infamously been controlled by these same corporations, which have a long track record of disregarding the massive environmental and human health impacts of their products, disenfranchising family-scale farmers, obfuscating the truth about their products and obstructing regulations.   

Why should we be concerned about genetically engineered soil microbes? 

The report details a range of ecological, human health and socioeconomic risks, from the rare but potentially disastrous risk of creating an invasive species or novel human pathogen to the potential for agrichemical corporations to use patents on GE microbes to further entrench their ownership over life and the food system.  

The gaps in our knowledge and limitations of our ability to predict or control the outcomes of this novel technology are profound and varied. Soil microbiomes are marked by incredible complexity that we are only beginning to understand. Of the billions of species of microbes that make up the living soil, only a few hundred thousand, far less than one percent, have been scientifically characterized in detail.  

Unlike plants and animals, microbes are able to share genetic material with each other far more readily, even across completely unrelated organisms in a process known as horizontal gene transfer. As a result, the genetic modifications released inside genetically engineered microbes may move across species boundaries in unpredictable ways.  

Genetic engineering, including gene editing techniques like CRISPR, can result in an array of unintended genetic consequences, including insertions, deletions, inversions and translocations that were not expected. And when we attempt to intentionally alter soil microbiomes, there is no guarantee that the outcomes will be what we intend. Releasing genetically engineered microbes in agriculture could enable new associations to form with weed or pest species with unforeseen and potentially irreparable consequences. 

What is the state of the U.S. regulatory system related to genetically engineered microbes in agriculture? 

The current U.S. regulatory system for genetically engineered microbes for use in agriculture is inadequate and outdated. Existing regulations do not account for the unique features and risks of GE microbes  — live organisms that can reproduce and quickly spread across state and national borders. And authority is split between the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture, creating confusion and gaps in oversight.  

The regulatory system is also marked by an extreme lack of transparency. Companies are able to redact almost all details from public view in most regulatory filings under the self-designation of ‘Confidential Business Information.’ Even these redacted records are difficult to access and not clearly identified with the end products in which they appear. Once products are released, there is no program dedicated to surveilling the extent of their use or re-evaluating their safety over time. 

Given the serious potential risks associated with mass environmental release of genetically engineered microbes, it is imperative that civil society, farmers, and concerned scientists push for strong regulations and independent review and assessment of potential health and environmental risks. A far greater level of transparency is also fundamental to our ability to grapple, as a society, with the potential risks of this novel technology. 

Regulatory bodies should use the Precautionary Principle to guide action, meaning that precautionary measures to minimize or avoid threats to human health or the environment should be taken based on the weight of the available scientific evidence rather than waiting for full scientific certainty about cause and effect, which can take years or decades while harm accrues. The Precautionary Principle also elevates the importance of a full evaluation of safer approaches before moving ahead with a potentially risky new technology. Oversight should include independent assessment for public health and environmental safety, and long-term impacts should be assessed before products are released onto the market or into the environment. The Precautionary Principle also guides the incorporation of public input into decision-making processes, as the impacts of new technologies such as GE microbes in agriculture will be borne by society as a whole. Finally, socioeconomic concerns arising from the expansion of corporate property rights over microbes must be incorporated into decision-making before products are commercialized.

The post Genetically Engineered Soil Microbes: Risks and Concerns appeared first on Friends of the Earth.

The withdrawal of the biotech corporation Oxitec’s request halts the controversial proposed release of billions of genetically engineered insects. Scientists and other experts in the field have raised concerns about Oxitec’s proposal to release genetically engineered mosquitoes due to inadequate scientific review and lack of appropriate and relevant regulations, pressuring the company to disclose data critical to assessing potential public health and environmental impacts.  

Oxitec applied in April 2022 for a research authorization permit to release genetically engineered mosquitoes in Tulare County. In separate letters to DPR earlier this year, scientists and legislators urged DPR to deny the Oxitec permit because of concerns about risks posed to  human health, wildlife and vulnerable ecosystems, and the lack of regulations to control billions of genetically engineered mosquitoes released into an open-air environment.  

“All Californians should be relieved that this permit request has been withdrawn for the foreseeable future,” said Dana Perls, senior program manager at Friends of the Earth. “Significant scientific research on genetically engineered mosquitoes is still needed to understand the potential public health and environmental threats associated with the release of this novel genetically engineered insect.”   

Earlier this year, Assemblymember Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) stated in her office’s press release that “there are too many unknown factors when it comes to how (GE mosquitoes) could affect our biodiversity in the long run, including how this might influence populations of birds, bats, fish species, and other insects.” 

“The withdrawal of Oxitec’s application is a victory for California residents and wild species,” said Rebecca Spector, west coast director at Center for Food Safety. “This withdrawal in in line with leaders from our state legislature who demanded a more comprehensive review of the impacts of these genetically engineered mosquitoes before the approval of this permit.” 

“This is a significant opportunity for California’s state agencies to hit pause and craft meaningful regulations that fully comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). We must do a full CEQA review of this proposal, and we need regulations governing the release of any genetically engineered animal in our state,” said Nan Wishner, founding board member of the California Environmental Health Initiative. “A full CEQA analysis requires thorough exploration of environmental harm and identification of less potentially harmful alternatives.”    

“Genetically engineered mosquitoes are an environmental justice issue for Tulare County residents who should not be human experiments,” said Angel Garcia, co-director of the statewide coalition Californians for Pesticide Reform and Tulare County resident. “We are already impacted by some of the worst pollution problems in the state and deserve prior informed consent to being part of an open-air biopesticide experiment. Ahead of any future proposal for genetically engineered insects, DPR needs to have robust regulations in place that protect community members, and meaningful, inclusive public participation in any decision making.”    

Before an unregistered pesticide can be field tested in the state, U.S. EPA would need to approve an experimental use permit ahead of any field release, and DPR would need to approve a research authorization application. With the withdrawal of the Oxitec application, there is no pending research authorization request for the study of genetically engineered mosquitoes in California. 

Comms contact: Haven Bourque, haven@havenbmedia.com, 415-505-3473 

The post Genetically Engineered Mosquito experiment in California’s Central Valley halted appeared first on Friends of the Earth.

MONTREAL/TIOHTIÀ:KE/UNCEDED TERRITORY OF THE KANIEN’KEHÁ:KA NATION – Climber-activists today dropped 80-foot banners reading, “Biodiversity versus Billionaires,” visible from Montreal’s Palais des Congres where world leaders are meeting at the UN’s landmark Biodiversity COP15.

The banners were unfurled to warn delegates that mega-billionaires such as Jeff Bezos (founder of Amazon.com) and Bill Gates (founder of Microsoft) are perversely influencing global decisions about biotechnology and  conservation including restructuring global biodiversity financing in unaccountable ways. At last week’s CBD COP15 opening ceremony , UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres had already told  delegates to “forget the deluded dreams of billionaires – there is no planet B.”

This action comes as the ‘Bezos Earth Fund’ is expected to announce further billions of dollars in funds toward securing the controversial “30×30” policy that has been branded ‘the biggest land grab in history.’ Although best known for his Amazon.com web business, Bezos also boasts a ‘Blue Origin’ space business to build the ‘road to space.’ His stated aim is to move most human beings off the planet into future space colonies. With typical hubris, Mr Bezos recently told an audience in New York, “I’ve always wanted to turn the earth into a sort of national park.”

“We are alarmed to see  biodiversity megabucks being bestowed by yet another big tech billionaire, known for his ruthless disregard of human rights and ecology,” explains Jim Thomas of ETC Group, an international watchdog that tracks behavior of tech giants. “If Bezos gave a damn about a  future in  harmony with nature, he would begin by properly paying taxes, properly paying his workers and also making reparations for the enormous harm to nature already caused by the resource extraction for his commercial activities.”

But Bezos is not the first: In the last six years, civil society groups active at the CBD have denounced the impact of funding by tech billionaires such as Bill Gates and Dustin Moscovitz (Facebook founder) on genetic technologies such as gene drives and geoengineering. Gates-sponsored lobbyists, science groups and public relations firms like the Alliance for Science, Emerging Ag Inc. and the African Network of Biosafety Experts have attempted to influence official UN expert groups, influence negotiation text, and coordinate with the African Union to advocate for gene drive experiments in Africa. Gates has also invested millions to promote geoengineering (i.e. climate-altering) technologies to attempt to undo a hard-won moratorium at the CBD. Gates invested heavily in Target Malaria Project, which is developing gene drive mosquitoes for release in Africa.

“Africans refuse to be the guinea pigs of gene drives! The solution to malaria lies in biodiversity, hygiene and sanitation,” says Ali Tapsoba, président of Terre à Vie an NGO based in Burkina Faso, attending COP15.

‘’Billionaires and the corporate lobby should not influence the decision making when there is an urgent need to save us from the biodiversity crisis,‘’ adds Thibault Rehn, from Quebec-based Vigilance OGM. “Early this week, we denounced Croplife, the major biotech lobby that heavily promoted the use of GMO and pesticides, despite their destructive impacts on biodiversity.’’

“These massive infusions of billionaire philanthropic cash into the UN CBD are perpetuating the financialisation and corporate takeover of nature through approaches such as ‘blended finance,’ private financing, and the imminent establishment of markets in ecosystem services,” says Helena Paul of EcoNexus and the Global Forest Coalition.

“Billionaire funds exist as a result of corporate exploitation of workers and the environment. Their donations are yet another way in which they skew the outcomes of the biodiversity conference away from real regulation, replacing them with greenwashing measures,” says Hemantha Withanage, Chair of Friends of the Earth International.

Contacts:

English Contact: Laura DunnJim Thomas, ETC Group, laurajbd@gmail.com, jim@etcgroup.org  +1 514 607 99795145165759

French Contact: Laure Mabileau , Vigilance OGM , local Québec NGO, +1 438 395 61215145821674

The post Banners to Bezos and Gates: Back Off of Biodiversity! appeared first on Friends of the Earth.

“We should all be very concerned about an EPA that forgets its middle name, protection, with this approval. Our public trust is abused by Oxitec’s lack of scientific transparency and no independent scientific investigation from EPA to show this experimental insect will not create infinitely more problems than it will solve,” said Barry Wray, Director of Florida Keys Environmental Coalition. “The EPA has behaved as if it is in partnership with Oxitec, disregarding the company’s history of deception and allowing a lobbyist to meet former EPA Administrator Pruitt. It is ethically repugnant to release these mosquitoes.” 

FDACS’ approval came despite unresolved public health and environmental concerns raised by scientists, public health experts and environmental groups about potential impacts of the release. The data from Florida’s 2021 field trial release of genetically engineered mosquitoes in the Florida Keys still has not been made public or reviewed by independent scientists.   

“FDACS should have required Oxitec to cease claiming as ‘confidential business information’ their data on the human health and environmental effects of the release of the mosquitoes,” said Jaydee Hanson, Policy Director at Center for Food Safety. “In Spain, when Oxitec withheld the data, the Spanish government told Oxitec to make public the health and environmental safety effects of their genetically engineered insect. Florida should have done the same. Moreover, FDACS should not have allowed a second major release without making public the data from the first trial and having it reviewed by unbiased scientists in the field.” 

Oxitec claims its GE mosquito field trials are intended to reduce the population of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes — one species that can carry yellow fever, dengue, chikungunya and Zika. However, the potential public health impacts of GE mosquitoes could be problematic. A Yale University study in Brazil observed that the GE mosquitoes bred with local Aedes aegypti, resulting in hybrid mosquitoes in the wild that may be more aggressive, more difficult to eradicate and may increase the spread of mosquito-borne disease. Unfortunately, the EPA did not publicly share its entire public health analysis, and data about allergenicity and toxicity were redacted from public documents. EPA’s key environmental assessments were also insufficient and did not mandate scientific tests using caged trials ahead of environmental release.  

“Poorly done, secretive science and lack of transparency is once again being rewarded with a free pass by government officials who are ignoring the voices of concerned scientists and those most impacted.” said Dana Perls, Emerging Technology Program Manager at Friends of the Earth. “First in Brazil, and now in Florida, government agencies have missed the mark and promoted the interests of a private corporation over public health and ecosystem protection.” 

EPA also approved a new California field trial for Fresno, Tulare, San Bernadino and Stanislaus counties — major agricultural regions populated by farmworkers and vulnerable low-income communities. California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation is poised to decide whether to approve Oxitec’s permit for an open-air experiment in Tulare County, California. If approved, billions of GE mosquitoes could be released over a two-year period in the Central Valley, beginning in 2022.

Communications Contacts:

Haven Bourque, haven@havenbmedia.com; (415) 505-3473 

Maria Juur, mjuur@centerforfoodsafety.org, (323) 920-0093 

Expert Contacts:

Dana Perls, 925-705-1074, dperls@foe.org 

Jaydee Hanson, 703-231-5956, jhanson@centerforfoodsafety.org 

Barry Wray, 305-304-9898, support@fkec.org 

The post Florida approves risky release of billions of genetically engineered mosquitoes in scientifically flawed experiment appeared first on Friends of the Earth.

EPA’s approval came despite growing concerns raised by scientists, public health experts and environmental groups about potential impacts of the experimental releases to public health, the environment and endangered species.

No publicly available data supports Oxitec’s claims that GE mosquitoes will reduce incidence of mosquito borne diseases.  An independent peer-reviewed study from Yale University scientists revealed that over two years of continual releases of the GE mosquitoes at a test site in Brazil failed to reduce populations of Aedes aegypti. The Yale study also found that the GE mosquitoes bred with local Aedes aegypti, resulting in hybrid mosquitoes in the wild that may be more aggressive, more difficult to eradicate and may increase the spread of mosquito-borne disease.

“Scientists have found genetic material from GE mosquitoes in wild populations at significant levels, which means GE mosquitoes are not sterile. GE mosquitoes could result in far more health and environmental problems than they would solve,” said Dana Perls, Food and Technology Program Manager at Friends of the Earth, and a California resident. “EPA needs to do a real review of potential risks and stop ignoring widespread opposition in the communities where releases will happen.”

The experimental release will purportedly investigate whether the GE mosquito can reduce the population of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes — one species that can carry yellow fever, dengue, chikungunya and Zika. However, California does not have any cases of these diseases, as reported by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. In addition, the Aedes aegypti mosquito is not prevalent in California.

“This experiment is unnecessary and even dangerous, as there are no locally acquired cases of dengue, yellow fever, chikungunya or Zika in California,” said Jaydee Hanson, Policy Director for the International Center for Technology Assessment and Center for Food Safety. ”Releasing billions of GE mosquitoes makes it likely that female GE mosquitoes will get out and create hybrid mosquitoes that are more virulent and aggressive. Other public health strategies, including the use of Wolbachia infected mosquitoes, could better control the Aedes aegypti in California and Florida.”

The EPA did not publicly release any data from Oxitec field trials in Florida or Brazil and key information about health effects, including allergenicity and toxicity, was redacted from the company’s application for a permit. The EPA declined to convene a Scientific Advisory Panel as it does for other new pesticides.

“Once released into the environment, genetically engineered mosquitoes cannot be recalled,” said Dr. Robert Gould, President of San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility and California resident. “Rather than forge ahead with an unregulated open-air genetic experiment, we need precautionary action, transparent data and appropriate risk assessments.”

Despite strong public opposition, in April 2021, Oxitec and the Florida Keys Mosquito Control Board began the release of half a billion genetically engineered mosquitoes into Monroe County, Florida. Neither the mosquito control board nor Oxitec informed community residents about the locations of release until three days beforehand, and there was no informed consent by affected community members prior to release.

Following the EPA’s approval, California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation and local mosquito abatement districts will also decide whether to approve the permit for release. If approved, billions of GE mosquitoes will be released over a 2-year period in 4 counties in California, beginning in 2022, and the current GE mosquito release in Monroe County, Florida, will be extended for another 2 years.

Communications contact: Haven Bourque, haven@havenbmedia.com; (415) 505-3473
Expert contacts: Dana Perls, 925-705-1074, dperls@foe.org
Jaydee Hanson, 703-231-5956, jhanson@centerforfoodsafety.org

The post Genetically Engineered Mosquito Imminent Mass Release Ignores Science, Public Health and Environmental Risks appeared first on Friends of the Earth.