Press Release by Critical Scientists Switzerland and European
Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility
(ENSSER)
The EASAC-endorsed Leopoldina Statement, demanding that the EU
stops regulating 'genome-edited' plants, represents the narrow
interests of 'genome editors' but it does not demonstrate the
scientific objectivity or balance required, nor does it represent
any consensus in the scientific community at large beyond the
self-interested advocates.
The EASAC-endorsed Leopoldina Statement is biased and does not
withstand scientific scrutiny. ENSSER and CSS, in a scientific
critique of the Leopoldina Statement, urgently call for stringent
regulation of 'genome editing' to protect public and
environmental safety. The so-called 'genome editing' techniques,
just like the older techniques of genetic modification, give rise
to known as well as inadvertently generated risks. Their
potential for dual use, abuse and accidental misuse is
considerably higher than that of the older techniques and
warrants even stricter surveillance. So does their application as
gene drives.
The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental
Responsibility (ENSSER) and Critical Scientists Switzerland (CSS)
have analysed two publications by the German Academy of Sciences
Leopoldina[1] and the European
Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC)[2] in which both called on
the EU Commission to end the regulation of so-called
‘genome-edited’ organisms and also older transgenic genetically
modified organisms (GMOs). ENSSER and CSS found both Statements
to be seriously lacking in scientific objectivity and rigour. The
literature quoted by Leopoldina and EASAC was selected to support
their preconceived conclusion. We list more than 200 relevant
scientific publications which suggest another conclusion. 'Genome
editing', just as much as the older transgenic techniques,
demonstrably poses risks to the environment and human health.
Moreover, the relative ease of use and low cost of the
ingredients of CRISPR, the best-known and most widely used
'genome editing' tool, give rise to a considerably higher
potential for dual use, abuse and accidental misuse. The
application of 'genome editing' as gene drives (which are
intended to permanently modify, replace or eradicate whole
populations or species in the wild) is an additional cause for
great concern[3].
The Leopoldina and EASAC statements repeat old claims, made since
the 1980s for transgenic techniques, for 'genome editing'
techniques. In particular, Leopoldina and EASAC claim that
'genome editing' is precise, controllable, predictable, and
therefore safe, and that the application of this technology is
crucial to help fight hunger by raising food crop yields. In
their report, ENSSER and CSS demonstrate that these claims are
not supported by the available scientific evidence – not for
'genome editing' nor for transgenesis. The term 'genome
editing' is not even justified in light of its
inaccuracies of action or lacking predictability of consequences.
The root causes of hunger are related to social and economic
problems (poverty, conflict and exclusion) rather than to crop
yields. There is also no record of GMO interventions increasing
crop yields as such, or indeed reducing hunger. In contrast, a
series of widely recognised expert reports have called for a
rapid shift from destructive, input-intensive industrial
agriculture to agroecological farming methods, that will not only
enhance resilience, food security and human health but also
biodiversity and environmental health.
What Leopoldina and EASAC have provided is baseless hype. The
majority of 'genome edited' crops mentioned by the Leopoldina
statement are at preliminary exploratory research stages and most
have not even shown functional efficacy.
The Leopoldina and EASAC statements are all the more disquieting
since both organisations portray themselves as representing the
collective voice of science in Germany and Europe, respectively.
Their documents, however, are a distortion of science and
misleadingly imply a scientific consensus. They seem to use the
supposed authority of science to cloak partisanship for a
particular position, in this case a corporate perspective (also
termed "stealth issue advocacy"[4]). This is dangerous,
because if gene editing was exempted from regulation it would
pose significant risks to public and environmental health.
ENSSER and CSS stress that 'genome editing' needs to remain
stringently regulated, if not more stringently than in the
current GMO legislation, in particular as there is no history of
safe use for any of these new techniques. The precautionary
principle, to which the EU is committed, requires this and it
must be applied to new techniques as history shows[5].
ENSSER, CSS, 2021:
· "Scientific critique of Leopoldina and EASAC statements
on genome edited plants in the EU": https://ensser.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Greens-EFA-GMO-Study-1.pdf
◦ English: https://ensser.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Greens-EFA-GMO-Study-EN-Executive-Summary.pdf
