Safety checks on gene-editing are inadequate
Many scientific studies overlook potential dangers
Claims of precision and safety from Government Ministers and advisors are based on inadequate testing. Most developers use screening methods that do not detect the full range of unintended genetic changes, so dangerous mutations can easily go unnoticed.5,11
The pro-GM lobby appears to be unscientific and reckless in their safety claims. Research that claims gene-edited foods are safe to eat is misleading because it does not generally implement three vital safety assessments:
1. Long-read Whole Genome Sequencing
The methods currently used for assessing unintended DNA damage from gene editing usually only involve checking for sites of mutation based on computer predictive software and have been shown to be grossly inadequate.⁵ ¹¹
2. In-depth molecular compositional profiling analysis
Techniques, including transcriptomics (global patterns of gene function), proteomics (global protein composition) and metabolomics (global biochemical composition) to check for unintended and potentially hazardous functional and compositional changes.
3. Long-term and multigenerational animal feeding studies
To check for biological effects on animals that eat the GMOs, including on their reproductive systems.
These safety checks are readily available to check for unintended genetic mutations, but are not required, even under current legislation.
The new UK legislation will even further remove requirements for safety assessments. It is us, the UK people, who will pay the price, unless we act now to safeguard our food supply.