GMWatch
gmwatch.bsky.social
GMWatch
@gmwatch.bsky.social
Countering the propaganda of the biotech industry.
This shows that genome-edited organisms can be detected in the food chain — a vital step in maintaining transparency in the food system to track and monitor genome-edited organisms, operationalise consumer choice, and to facilitate labelling of genome-edited products.
December 17, 2025 at 4:00 PM
Reposted by GMWatch
⛔ To make things worse, on Friday EU countries are set to vote on patented GM crop deregulation, which will further farmers dependence on just a few seed corporations, and create more safety risks.

👉 Take action now against the toxic Omnibus on pesticides: www.pan-europe.info/end-toxic-pe...
End The Toxic Pesticide Age
Do you want healthy food for you and your children? Do you care about biodiversity and clean water? Beware! The European Commission is currently proposing a series of measures to massively deregulate ...
www.pan-europe.info
December 15, 2025 at 9:21 AM
Reposted by GMWatch
'Pretty ecomodernist in many ways' would be a fair, if mild, take on Regenesis. Whereas @georgemonbiot.bsky.social's latest Guardian article is totally ecomodernist by George's own definition of the term, as I explain in my essay. Money from Bezos to finesse carbon markets - what'll it be next?
December 8, 2025 at 9:21 PM
This was a long overdue retraction — 25 years overdue! And a world away from what happened to Seralini spinwatch.org/index.php/is...
Smelling a corporate rat
A new study suggesting a Monsanto GM maize and the company's Roundup herbicide may pose serious health risks has been widely attacked, not just by sci...
spinwatch.org
December 8, 2025 at 8:46 PM
You will have seen the comment on that from your co-author: “Even if EPA doesn’t rely on this one, it relies on many other papers that rely on this review. It’s impossible to come up with any decision without relying on studies that rely on this review.” www.washingtonpost.com/climate-envi...
This study found this weed-killing chemical doesn’t cause cancer. It was just retracted.
The 2000 study in the scientific journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology had concluded that the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, did not pose a cancer risk to humans.
www.washingtonpost.com
December 8, 2025 at 7:44 PM
Reposted by GMWatch
1. Historically, eugenics was not a pseudoscience. It was *science* Almost every scientist, social scientist, academic, etc. believed in the validity of eugenics. You would have to search far & wide to find a scientist that didn't believe in some form of it. They taught it in college!
December 4, 2025 at 12:44 PM
“Now that much of the research finding #glyphosate poses no cancer risk has been undermined, it is especially outrageous that the Trump administration is seeking to bolster Bayer’s case (by) throwing its full weight behind Bayer’s desire to deny cancer victims their day in court.” — Nathan Donley
December 4, 2025 at 1:14 PM
The only positive outcomes are that if new GMOs (NGTs) are herbicide tolerant or have insecticidal traits built in, which is the case for the overwhelming majority of current GMOs, they won't be fully deregulated. They'll fall into Category 2, which can be banned at the national level.
December 4, 2025 at 10:00 AM