Genome editing in agriculture and food is leading to new, improved crops and other products. Depending on the regulatory approach taken in each country or region, commercialization of these crops and products may or may not require approval from the respective regulatory authorities. This paper describes the regulatory landscape governing genome edited agriculture and food products in a selection of countries and regions.

A ccording to its advocates, social investing (also known as socially responsible investing or ethical investing) is a fast-growing phenomenon that represents "nearly one out of eight dollars under professional management in the United States." Its central tenet is that clients can "invest for their own futures and a better world at the same time" by buying stock in companies that pass social screens and avoiding investments in companies that do not. According to this general approach, publicly-traded companies can be "objectively" rated using data gathered by social investing researchers, most notably by Kinder, Lydenberg, & Domini (KLD). Some academicians incorporate these ratings into their research as measures of corporate social performance (CSP). In contrast, this study contends that social investing principles are problematic and that the data and ratings generated by social investment researchers are hopelessly flawed. Social investment advocates rely on sketchy, highly selective research and pseudo-objective ratings that belie the complexity of modern corporations and economies. Social screening in general and KLD's ratings in particular are tainted by anachronistic, contradictory, idiosyncratic, and ideologically constructed notions of corporate social responsibility. Representations of the growing financial impact and competitive performance of social investing are questionable. No social research organization or "socially responsible" mutual fund has yet presented a coherent case for why its criteria are ethical or socially responsible or better at effecting social change. This study concludes that the general approach of social investment advocates, including by academic researchers, is one of vindication of the true believer, not investigation.

No abstract

No abstract

Genetically modified (GM) organisms and crops have been a feature of food production for over 30 years. Despite extensive science-based risk assessment, the public and many politicians remain concerned with the genetic manipulation of crops, particularly food crops. Many governments have addressed public concern through biosafety legislation and regulatory frameworks that identify and regulate risks to ensure human health and environmental safety. These domestic regulatory frameworks align to international scientific risk assessment methodologies on a case-by-case basis. Regulatory agencies in 70 countries around the world have conducted in excess of 4400 risk assessments, all reaching the same conclusion: GM crops and foods that have been assessed provide no greater risk to human health or the environment than non-GM crops and foods. Yet, while the science regarding the safety of GM crops and food appears conclusive and societal benefits have been globally demonstrated, the use of innovative products have only contributed minimal improvements to global food security. Regrettably, politically-motivated regulatory barriers are currently being implemented with the next genomic innovation, genome editing, the implications of which are also discussed in this article. A decade of reduced global food insecurity was witnessed from 2005 to 2015, but regrettably, the figure has subsequently risen. Why is this the case? Reasons have been attributed to climate variability, biotic and abiotic stresses, lack of access to innovative technologies and political interference in decision making processes. This commentary highlights how political interference in the regulatory approval process of GM crops is adversely affecting the adoption of innovative, yield enhancing crop varieties, thereby limiting food security opportunities in food insecure economies.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract