Dans cette vidéo, découvrez comment les firmes agro-industrielles 
sont en train de s'organiser pour faire main basse sur le vivant.

► Regarder la vidéo

Les nouvelles techniques d'édition du génome donnent la possibilité aux firmes qui les maîtrisent de modifier et breveter les abeilles, les bourdons, les papillons et un grand nombre d'organismes sauvages, directement dans leur milieu naturel.

Alors que les producteurs de ces nouveaux OGM tentent d'assouplir les législations européenne et internationale afin de disséminer ces modifications génétiques directement dans la nature, de nombreuses organisations non-gouvernementales, dont POLLINIS, s'inquiètent des risques environnementaux, alimentaires, économiques, éthiques et sociaux, et tentent d'alerter l'opinion publique sur ce sujet fondamental pour l'avenir du vivant.

#StopForçageGénétique

Rejoignez la mobilisation !

► Je signe la pétition

► Je partage cette campagne :

◆ Frieß J.L., Giese B., von Gleich A. (2020) Technology Characterisation. In: von Gleich A., Schröder W. (eds) Gene Drives at Tipping Points. Springer, Cham.
◆ Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), Naegeli, H., Bresson, J. L., Dalmay, T., Dewhurst, I. C., Epstein, M. M., Guerche, P., Hejatko, J., Moreno, F. J., Mullins, E., Nogué, F., Rostoks, N., Sánchez Serrano, J. J., Savoini, G., Veromann, E., Veronesi, F., Bonsall, M. B., Mumford, J., Wimmer, E. A., Devos, Y., … Firbank, L. G. (2020). Adequacy and sufficiency evaluation of existing EFSA guidelines for the molecular characterisation, environmental risk assessment and post-market environmental monitoring of genetically modified insects containing engineered gene drives. EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 18(11), e06297. Voir en particulier Table 5 :
Increased persistence and invasiveness potential
– A competitive advantage of GDMIs as compared to the wild type, causing increased persistence and invasiveness and leading to the displacement of other insect pest species
Increased potential for resistance to evolve in the target organism
– Management responses to reduced efficacy of the GDMI
Increased potential for vertical and horizontal gene transfer
– Spread of the genetic modification of interest to non‐target organisms through vertical and horizontal gene transfer
Increased toxicity
- Transmission of substances (related to the components of an engineered gene drive) that are toxic to non‐target organisms that consume the GDMI
◆ GENE DRIVES - A report on their science, applications, social aspects, ethics and regulations, Critical Scientists Switzerland (CSS), European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), Vereinigung Deutscher Wissenschaftler (VDW) 2019
◆ ETC Group and Heinrich Böll Stiftung (2018). Forcing the farm: how gene drive organisms could entrench industrial agriculture and threaten food sovereignty.
◆ von Gleich, A. and L. Schaeffer, Eds. (2020). Gene Drives at Tipping Points. Precautionary Technology Assessment and Governance of New Approaches to Genetically Modify Animal and Plant Populations. Germany, Springer Open
◆ Forcer l'Agriculture, ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Stiftung 2019
◆ James, S., J. Marshall, G. Christophides, F. Okumu and T. Nolan (2020). Toward the definition of efficacy and safety criteria for advancing gene drive-modified mosquitoes to field testing. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Diseases 20: 237–251.

RÉFÉRENCES

Sur les techniques d'édition du génome et leurs applications

◆ Esvelt KM, Gemmell NJ (2017) Conservation demands safe gene drive. PLOS Biology 15(11): e2003850.
Noble, C., B. Adlam, G. Church, K. Esvelt and M. Nowak (2018). Current CRISPR gene drive systems are likely to be highly invasive in wild populations. Elife 7(e33423);
◆ Esvelt, K., A. Smidler, F. Catteruccia and G. Church (2014). Concerning RNA-guided gene drives for the alteration of wild populations. Elife 17(3).
◆ Rode, N., A. Estoup, D. Bourguet, V. Courtier-Orgogozo and F. Debarre (2019). Population management using gene drive: molecular design, models of spread dynamics and assessment of ecological risks. Conservation Genetics, 20: 671–690.
◆ Dolezel, M., S. Simon, M. Otto, M. Engelhard and W. Züghart (2020). Gene drive organisms. Implications for the environment and nature conservation. A joint technical report of the EPA/ENCA interest group on risk assessment and monitoring of GMOs. Report REP-0705. Umweltbundesamt GmbH.
◆ Dolezel, M., C. Lüthi and H. Gaugitsch (2020). Beyond limits – the pitfalls of global gene drives for environmental risk assessment in the European Union. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Risk Assessment 15: 1-29.
◆ Smets, G. and P. Rüdelsheim (2020). Study on risk assessment application of annex I of decision CP 9/13 to living modified organisms containing engineered gene drives, On behalf of the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. CBD/CP/RA/AHTEG/2020/1/4.
◆ Ono, R., Y. Yasuhiko, K.-I. Aisaki, S. Kitajima, J. Kanno and Y. Hirabayashi (2019). Exosome-mediated horizontal gene transfer occurs in double-strand break repair during genome editing. Communications Biology 2(57).
◆ Courtier‐Orgogozo, V, Danchin, A, Gouyon, P‐H, Boëte, C. Evaluating the probability of CRISPR‐based gene drive contaminating another species. Evol Appl. 2020; 13: 1888– 1905.
◆ Committee on Gene Drive Research in Non-Human Organisms: Recommendations for Responsible Conduct; Board on Life Sciences; Division on Earth and Life Studies; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Gene Drives on the Horizon: Advancing Science, Navigating Uncertainty, and Aligning Research with Public Values. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2016 Jul 28. PMID: 27536751.
◆ Trtikova, M., Wikmark, O.G., Zemp, N., Widmer, A., Hilbeck, A. (2015) Transgene expression and Bt protein content in transgenic Bt maize (MON810) under optimal and stressful environmental conditions. PLOS ONE, 10: e0123011.
◆ Then, C., K. Kawall and N. Valenzuela (2020). Spatio-temporal controllability and environmental risk assessment of genetically engineered gene drive organisms from the perspective of EU GMO regulation. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 16: 555-568
◆ EFSA 2020, ibid. Table 5 :
Adverse effects associated with the suppression of the target organism
– Suppression of the target organism that serves as food source (e.g. prey) for non‐target organisms (e.g. predator)
– Suppression of the target organism may harm non‐target organisms that rely on the species for the delivery of ecosystem services (such as pollination, biological control, decomposition)
– Invasion of the ecological niche vacated by suppression of the target organism of another insect pest (e.g. other mosquito species in aquatic habitats during larval stages) (niche replacement)
◆ Hochkirch, A., J. Beninde, M. Fischer, A. Krahner, C. Lindemann, D. Matenaar, K. Rohde, N. Wagner, C. Wesch, S. Wirtz, A. Zink, S. Lotters, T. Schmitt, A. Proelss, and M. Veith. 2018. License to Kill?-Disease Eradication Programs May Not be in Line with the Convention on Biological Diversity. Conservation Letters 11 (1):6. doi: 10.1111/conl.12370.
◆ Gene Drive Film, Save our Seeds 2020

◆ Begley, S. (2016). Monsanto licenses CRISPR technology to modify crops — with key restrictions. STAT.
◆ Cameron, D. (2017). DuPont Pioneer and Broad Institute Join Forces to Enable Democratic CRISPR Licensing in Agriculture. Broad Institute.
◆ Michalopoulos, S. (2019). Corteva signs first major gene editing deal with European company, EURACTIV.
◆ Patent US 20200002719 A1 Lepidopteran-active Cry1Da1 amino acid sequence variant proteins - Monsanto Technology LLC
◆ Patent US 20180155739 A1 Compositions and methods to control insect pests - PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC., E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
◆ Patent US20190022151A1 : Method and System for Protecting Honey Bees, Bats and Butterflies From Neonicotinoid Pesticides - Joseph E. Kovarik
◆ Patent US20160310754A1 : Systems and methods for controlling animal behavior via optogenetics - Elwha LLC
◆ Nearly half the experts from the European Food Safety Authority have financial conflicts of interest, Corporate Europe Observatory 14/06/2017
◆ « As a proactive measure and due to the potential for gene drives to spread through populations, persist in the environment, and potentially cause irreversible effects on organisms and ecosystems, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has been requested by the European Commission to review whether its previously published guidelines for the risk assessment of genetically modified animals (EFSA, 2012 and 2013) are adequate for the molecular characterisation (MC) and environmental risk assessment (ERA) of gene drive modified disease-spreading mosquitoes and agricultural insect pests for deliberate release into the environment. » Evaluation of existing EFSA guidelines for their adequacy for the molecular characterisation and environmental risk assessment of genetically modified insects with synthetically engineered gene drives, European Food Safety Authority 2020
◆ EFSA gene drive working group fails independence test - Corporate Europe Observatory 28.06.2019
◆ Conflicts of interest at the European Food Safety Authority erode public confidence, Journal of epidemiology and community health · March 2013
Independence of EFSA's GMO risk assessment challenged. Complaint file with EU ombudsman
◆ « In this Scientific Opinion, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) concludes that EFSA's guidelines are adequate, but insufficient for the molecular characterisation (MC), environmental risk assessment (ERA) and post‐market environmental monitoring (PMEM) of GDMIs. » Adequacy and sufficiency evaluation of existing EFSA guidelines for the molecular characterisation, environmental risk assessment and post‐market environmental monitoring of genetically modified insects containing engineered gene drives, EFSA 2020
◆ GeneDriveFiles
◆ Le forçage génétique sous influence - ETC Group 2019

◆ LETTRE COLLECTIVE À EMMANUEL MACRON POUR UNE INTERDICTION DU FORÇAGE GÉNÉTIQUE - POLLINIS 21/09/2020
◆ LETTRE COLLECTIVE AU GOUVERNEMENT FRANÇAIS POUR UNE INTERDICTION DU FORÇAGE GÉNÉTIQUE - POLLINIS 23/07/2020
◆ 78 ASSOCIATIONS DEMANDENT À LA COMMISSION UN MORATOIRE SUR LE FORÇAGE GÉNÉTIQUE - POLLINIS 30/06/2020
◆ 162 ORGANISATIONS APPELLENT L’EUROPE À LA FERMETÉ SUR L’ENCADREMENT DES NOUVEAUX OGM - POLLINIS 31/03/2021

Sur les risques

Sur les firmes et leurs stratégies d'influence

Sur les actions menées par les organisations de la société civile