Consultation responses

APPG Agroecology inquiry on Agroecology as a Nature Based Solution

7 May 2021

GM Freeze responded briefly to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Agroecology’s inquiry into whether or not agroecology should be considered a ‘Nature Based Solution’ for the purposes of policy and funding initiatives.

Defra: Regulation of Genetic Technologies

17 Mar 2021

GM Freeze’s own response to the Defra Consultation on the Regulation of Genetic Technologies. Includes our concerns about the conduct of the consultation and the framing of key questions, as well as our answers to the consultation questions themselves.

Gene Editing Consultation

24 Jan 2021

GM Freeze advice on responding to the UK consultation on the deregulation of gene editing which closed on 17 March 2021. Our full advice is shown here in the form of a printable pdf file.

National Food Strategy

24 Oct 2019

GM Freeze submission to the open Call for Evidence for the proposed new National Food Strategy, in which we propose:

• High standards achieved through robust regulation of the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
• Informed choice through clear consumer labelling and meaningful public engagement that values lay contributions and incorporates social, ethical and economic impacts alongside scientific analysis.
• Value and protect genetic diversity by discouraging monoculture and opposing the patenting of genetic resources.
• Address root problems within the food and farming system, rather than treating the symptoms.

Nuffield Council on Bioethics – Genome Editing and Farmed Animals

19 Sep 2019

GM Freeze responded to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics call for evidence on Genome Editing and Farmed Animals. Key points in our evidence include:

• There is growing evidence that genome editing is not as precise or targeted as those promoting it would have us believe.
• Many proposed applications of genome editing to farmed animals are likely to perpetuate and deepen the negative impacts of intensive farming.
• Public involvement in the development of policy and regulation of genome editing in farmed animals must be meaningful and broad ranging.
• We are concerned about the framing of the background and questions in the call for evidence to the inquiry.

Defra: Multi-agency response to GM potato trial 19/R29/01

16 Apr 2019

GM Freeze and thirty other organisations asked Defra to refuse The Sainsbury Laboratory permission to plant an open field trial of GM potatoes.

Defra: Multi-agency response to GM camelina trial 19/R08/01

20 Mar 2019

GM Freeze and thirty-four other organisations asked Defra to refuse Rothamsted Research’s application for a new open field trial of GM camelina plants.

Defra: Multi-agency response to GM wheat trial 19/R52/02

26 Feb 2019

GM Freeze and thirty-two other organisations come together to ask Defra not to allow the John Innes Centre to plant an open-air field trial of GM wheat.

Defra: Multi-agency response to GM brassica trial 19/R52/01

26 Feb 2019

GM Freeze and thirty-one other organisations come together to ask Defra not to allow the John Innes Centre to hold an open-air field trial of genome-edited GM Brassica

Bright Blue: Manifesto for Conservation

29 Nov 2018

GM Freeze responded to think tank Bright Blue’s call for evidence towards a Conservative Manifesto for Conservation, which included a specifc question about the regulation of GM in food production. Our evidence makes the following key points:

• The authorisation of GM crops must follow a robust, transparent and consistent process that encompasses social and ethical impacts alongside safety concerns.
• GM regulation must protect the entire food chain through effective and consistently enforced measures to prevent GM contamination.
• Consumers want to make an informed choice through clear GM labelling.
• All forms of genetic engineering, including genome editing, should be regulated in the same way as established GM techniques.