History of agriculture and food has always been the result of constant attempts and innovation, as the impact of beetroot on sugar production and price has shown in the past, three researchers write.
The public debate on genetic engineering in agriculture is largely characterised by misinformation, myths and a confused understanding of nature, writes plant breeding and gene editing expert, Professor Hans-Jörg Jacobsen (PhD).
It is time for America and Europe to work together to solve the next great challenge facing us - to produce enough food, with fewer inputs, to feed a growing world population - which means embracing innovation and technology in a safe, sustainable agriculture, writes Sonny Perdue.
In the last two decades, the cultivation of genetically biofortified crops, such as Golden Rice, to help solve the global humanitarian crisis of “malnutrition” remains elusive. Let’s consider the facts.
The new EU Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides recently told EURACTIV.com that her “priority is to gather more information” on gene editing. To this end, she said, "we will be preparing a study on new genomic techniques, foreseen for spring 2021”. Clearly, the design and set-up of such a study will be crucial to its outcome, writes Nina Holland.
The EU is leading the science-based fight against climate change and it will also lead on science-based plant innovation, writes former EU Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis.
The EU should give higher priority to the protection of health and the environment, but when it comes to genetically engineered plants, the current standards of risk assessment are not sufficient to fulfil the legal requirements, writes Christoph Then, executive director at Testbiotech.
Europe seems increasingly ready to face the challenges of the 21st century and to lead the way to a ‘greener’ and more sustainable future. But what role can the EU Parliament play in the face of recent unsubstantiated “objections” against GMOs?
For many years leading European food retailers have been following a strict non-GMO policy. Retailers are the parties most concerned when it comes to GMO regulation. For them, the proper implementation of the ECJ ruling is crucial, writes Heike Moldenhauer.
The EU's rules on GMOs risk stifling innovation in biotechnology and could lead to China and the US increasing their patent domination, writes Marcel Kuntz.
European restrictions on gene editing, GMOs and pesticides bans risk undermining scientific progress and innovation if they are not reversed, argues Sir Colin Berry.
While some may see the recent decision of the Court of Justice of the EU that states that organisms obtained by mutagenesis are GMOs and are therefore subject to obligations laid down by the GMO directive as a win for consumers, the reality is just the opposite, writes Neal Gutterson.
Reading the opinion of Greens / EFA members of the European Parliament on plant breeding, one can’t help but be amazed by their obsession with GMOs, writes Garlich von Essen.
When is a genetically modified organism (GMO) not a GMO? This is the question that the ECJ will soon rule on after a complaint from a coalition of French agriculture groups reached the EU’s highest court, writes Mute Schimpf.
Barely six years old, the EU’s Bioeonomy Strategy, currently under revision, is slowly but surely propagating green shoots of sustainable economic recovery in innumerable and unexpected ways, writes Joanna Dupont.
Albert Einstein said, “It is harder to crack prejudice than an atom.” A persistent prejudice in the EU is that against GMOs. An EU court judgment has restated that fears are unfounded, but will Europe take the opportunity to become a science-based society, ask Roberto Defez and Dennis Eriksson.
As the world focuses elsewhere, two untested varieties of genetically modified maize are slowly manoeuvring their way through the legislative hoops of the European institutions towards Europe’s fields, writes Mute Schimpf.
The European Commission is set to guide the regulatory fate of new biotechnologies crucial to the future of plant breeding. To meet such agricultural challenges, we need a product-oriented, flexible and adjustable regulatory system, write Klaus Ammann and Marcel Kuntz.
We should be worried that the European Commission’s chief scientific adviser position is under attack as an incoming EU president prepares to review legislation on GMOs, write Marcel Kuntz and John Davison
Policy makers generally trust the scientific recommendations of independent EU agencies. But in the GMO area, a vicious circle of lack of approvals and decreased trust in the technology is being perpetuated, leading to a negative precedent of “politics over science”, writes Nathalie Moll.
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can foster more sustainable farming, more crop varieties and healthier crops, but the debate on GMOs is politicised and lacks scientific justification, writes Marc Van Montagu.
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership could be the ultimate way to solve the US-Europe GMO dispute, writes Andreas Geiger.
The demand to transfer powers from the EU back to the national level is politically en-vogue in several EU member states at the moment. EU policy on agricultural biotechnology, however, is an interesting exception, writes Maria Weimer.
The EU’s post-2013 Common Agricultural Policy and EU other legislation must guarantee that organic and conventional farmers and food producers are no longer threatened by the risk of GMO contamination, argues Antje Kölling.
