It's not appropriate that scientific claims underpinning new laws & regulations should be 'pre-settled' in a predetermined manner. Why? Select Committees then rule public comment out of scope.
Thank you very much for ths article JRB . We are rushing headlong into a genetic swamo and this allowed by politicians who have no idea at all on the broader imlications of this engineering .
There is a proposal in Europe for a seed breeders exemption (doesn't change the fact the genome could be altered in ways that could be harmful). Amendment 23 Proposal for a regulation Recital 45 - page 17-18. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0325_EN.pdf
Thank you very much for ths article JRB . We are rushing headlong into a genetic swamo and this allowed by politicians who have no idea at all on the broader imlications of this engineering .
Perhaps a new law outlawing intellectual property rights for seeds is required. Then the dark push for GMO might suddenly disappear again !
Absolutely.
There is a proposal in Europe for a seed breeders exemption (doesn't change the fact the genome could be altered in ways that could be harmful). Amendment 23 Proposal for a regulation Recital 45 - page 17-18. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0325_EN.pdf
Thanks for doing the hard yards here. This is an issue I have been concerned about for a long time.
and when a NZ company sells its seed business to a foreigner, I don't see any govt action to protect a vital NZ asset.
The animal testing of foods shown here may be of interest, at Agent131711’s Substack. https://chemtrails.substack.com/p/substantial-equivalence-the-gmo-safety