The Scientist has published an opinion article for the classification and regulation of genetic modified organism (GMO) based loosely on the "What Could Possibly go Wrong" meme.
After studying many different GMO projects, the authors suggest categorizing projects and prioritizing regulations based on how the genetic modification was accomplished is more important than what the intended outcome was.
We are all familiar with the "Gene splicing" principal in GMO, as it seems to get the most press. This is where a trait from one species is spliced into another species. Called HDR: homology-directed repair, a short segment or an entire gene from some other species is introduced.
Just as common is :Gene Editing", which attempts to knock out certain pre-existing genes, and or, insert (or move) segments that also occur naturally in that species. Also known as NHEJ: non-homologous end-joining. (cutting and deleting or splicing from some other place in the organism).
Both methods can introduce a Gain of Function, or a Loss of Function into the GMO crop. Regulators, and the public fears of human / fly cross-breeds (by way of hyperbole) lead to regulations that largely miss the mark. It turns out that Gene Editing may pose the greater risk. And, most Gene Editing falls outside of regulation. Why: Because nothing foreign is added.
Continued...
The article proposes a framework to determine when a GMO project needs closer scrutiny and regulation. The article (first link) presents this in Graphical Form.
Basically, loss of function is more worrisome than gain of function. But over all, Cisgenesis, genetic modification in which genes are artificially transferred between organisms that could otherwise be conventionally bred is the least worrisome and should be permissibly regulated. Intragenesis, (in vitro recombination that can't occur via conventional breeding - hybrids, are the next most acceptable and least worrisome, and should be regulated permissibly. But both knock-out and insertion gene editing deserve the most stringent regulation, even though (or perhaps because) these have the greatest chance of unintended mutants going viral. Yet this type of genetic modifications slips through the regulatory system most frequently.
Most of the plant mutants in the analyzed reports may be outside the current GMO regulations. Although the selection of a regulatory line may vary from country to country, we propose that the most stringent regulation should be initially adopted and gradually relaxed for cautious integration of genome-edited crops into society. We also urge careful consideration of labelling of food containing genome-edited crops.
.
(Score: 2) by moondrake on Wednesday March 04 2015, @10:05PM
Now...its late and had wine and since I am at home I also cannot (easily) access some of the papers linked in the FA. To me it makes very little sense to be more afraid of knockout mutants (since it happens in nature all the time....) compared to over real gene transfer (which often includes possible knockouts and insertion of weird stuff due to how rather crude way of editting). The reason it is unregulated is precisely because it is deemed least worrisome.
I wonder if the figure is not taken a little bit too much out of context, perhaps the authors are just calling for more regulation on the stuff that is not really seen as serious genetic modification by experts because it would be ethical to tell the public that *something* happened to it. If so, I tend to disagree with them (I tend to feel that people should either learn to understand the issues involved, or shut up about it).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday March 04 2015, @10:14PM
They can't actually qualitatively state any concerns that represent something that represents distinct problems from the natural mutation and artificial selection that have been applied to crops for thousands of years.
People become very concerned over adding specific genes that create specific proteins that have a specific effect on the organism that tend to be well understood(because scientists are actively seeking that effect). Whereas the natural approach to solving the same problem, whatever it may be, is far more risky. Geneticists are accused of their reach exceeding their grasp, when all they're really doing is reaching a lot less blindly than before.
The scientific case here is pretty much nil.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @10:44PM
> They can't actually qualitatively state any concerns that represent something that represents distinct problems
> from the natural mutation and artificial selection that have been applied to crops for thousands of years.
They can't state them or you can't hear them? The fact that you seem unaware that transgenesis is impossible through "natural mutation and artificial selection" suggests the latter. Or perhaps you hide behind the pedant's excuse that horizontal gene transfer does occur in nature under very narrow circumstances, so it's all good.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Hartree on Thursday March 05 2015, @12:42AM
"horizontal gene transfer does occur in nature under very narrow circumstances"
Not just narrow circumstances.
In higher animals more rarely, but it's under quite broad circumstances in the rest of life. It's rampant in bacteria, archea, virii, etc, and they vastly outweigh multicell animals both in biomass and diversity.
The perhaps is due to the huge amount of incorporated foreign genetic material that is in each of us. A goodly portion of your genome is incorporated viral material (at least 5%. Look up endogenous retrovirus). Virii have picked up snippets of genetic material from all sorts of places, including other vertebrates. So, over the longer span of time, large amounts of foreign genetic material has been transferred even in the very groups that you would expect it least. And this has been found in just the short time we've known how to look for it.
I work at the land of Carl Woese and Nigel Goldenfeld (U of Illinois), and much of their later work is about how naturally occurring HGT has had massive effect on evolution and not just in prokaryotes. This is a very hot topic in genetics and evolution.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:11AM
> In higher animals more rarely, but it's under quite broad circumstances in the rest of life. It's rampant in bacteria, archea, virii,
Are you trying to prove my point about pedantry?
The day we start factory farming virii as a significant source of calories then that will be relevant.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Hartree on Thursday March 05 2015, @02:49AM
Are you intentionally taking that out of context and adding a non sequitor to try to support your position? And all the while rail about solid points being just pedantry of no importance?
This is central to how life developed and continues to develop. Mom nature does gene transfer on her own.
The virii are one of the main genetic transfer mechanisms for foreign genetic material, both in prokaryotes and the more complex eukaryotes. Did you even read the rest of the post where that's pointed out?
They're one of the main methods humans use to make GMOs by transferring foreign DNA to a new organism. Why? Because they've already been doing it for billions of years. They're better than we are at it. And, they do it to things we DO farm for calories.
(Score: 5, Informative) by MrGuy on Thursday March 05 2015, @12:02AM
Since we're on the topic....
Congress is currently debating a bill [ewg.org] (officially called the "Safe and Accurate Food Labelling Act," known to its opponents as the DARK "Denying Americans the Right to Know" Act) to establish national standards on food labelling. One upshot of that act appears to be a provision that pre-empts state laws requiring GMO foods to be labelled, and also makes it difficult for the FDA to require such labelling on a national level.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 05 2015, @12:51AM
Bill sponsor, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.): A real champion of State's rights!
"getting Washington out of the way so Kansas can thrive." [pompeoforcongress.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday March 05 2015, @12:25AM
GMO food products should require a "contains GMO" label.
...Which will be promptly ignored by everyone, who will continue to munch on safe GMO corn products.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @12:38AM
> Which will be promptly ignored by everyone
... by everyone who can't afford to do otherwise.
Given that practically all processed corn is GMO corn, it is unfair to blame the powerless for the fact that they don't have any power.
Just because the issue is too complicated for a perfect solution doesn't mean that maintaining the status quo is the right approach. If we start labelling food that at least creates the opportunity for non-GMO farmers to find a market.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:25AM
I really do believe in labeling. GMO shouldn't be a political issue, lobbyists shouldn't be allowed to prevent GMO labeling.
Get it done and out of the way so that health and safety can be discussed.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Disagree) by frojack on Thursday March 05 2015, @05:53AM
Get it done and out of the way so that health and safety can be discussed.
So THAT discussion can't be had until we allow labeling? Labeling pretty much begs the question of safety don't you think?
We made this mistake once before. Look back at the whole Organic Foods labeling issue. We have detailed standards about so called Organic Foods, when scientists can't find any difference between normal foods and organic foods, other than the Organic are usually inferior quality, full of bug bites, blemishes, and manure. But scientifically there isn't a shred of evidence of any difference.
So we are labeling based on a bogus belief systems.
Then there is the whole kosher labeling of foods. The marks are protected by law.
So we regulate based on religious reasons.
Then you have Homeopathy, protected licensed and regulated by the FDA.
So we regulate based on nothing at all.
The pattern is that once the labeling goes on the science comes to a stop, the presumption is established.
You are arguing for more junk science, labels based on nothing at all. And then, you expect everyone to believe there will be a rational discussion of health and safety AFTER you label?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday March 05 2015, @06:13AM
GMO is the opposite of the USDA Certified Organic label. Rather than a marketing boon, it's considered a nuisance that could result in a few lost sales and an extra penny spent on packaging here or there. The equivalent of "organic" is "GMO-free", and that has already become popular on feel-good organic product labels.
We have a situation where millions of dollars have been wasted on the politics of this issue. Oregon's Measure 92 [oregonlive.com]: $8 million spent by pro-labelers, $20 million by food corps.
GMO labeling regulation could be a binary. Does it contain GMOs? Yes/no. That's a verifiable fact. You can stretch the definition by including "Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering" or regulating byproducts of GMOs, but it is not hard to slap a GMO label on all of the GMO corn products. It doesn't mean that any particular product is harmful at all, but million$ have been spent to deny consumers information many of them want (not enough of them in the case of Oregon).
What good would this requirement do? Undermine the shrill concerns of the anti-GMO crowd. They are pissed and spouting doomsday BS because consumers can't tell if a product contains GMO. Once that issue is resolved, we can talk about how hundreds of millions of GMO meals a day aren't hurting anybody. What I'd really like is a situation in with companies are up-front and positive about GMO. Slap a QR code next to that GMO label, scan it to learn about how a trout gene prevents tomatoes from getting frostbite, or the new apples that don't brown when you cut into them.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday March 05 2015, @07:31AM
GMO is the opposite of the USDA Certified Organic label.
I never said they were the same.
My main point is that labeling, in both cases, is an exercise in Junk Science.
If we can find a valid scientific basis for labeling, by all means, lets label.
Or, Lets ban it. But Only if the Science is there.
Undermine the shrill concerns of the anti-GMO crowd.
It will do the opposite. It will be a "See, we told you so!" moment.
Why give in to Junk Science? Again!!
If it GMO labeling happens, It won't be binary either.
It will be "This product may have passed through a facility that processes GMO foods".
It will be "This product uses food crops grown on land that may have been been used at some time in the past to grow GMO crops.
Have we learned nothing from the Anti-Vaxing fiasco? What about the Cholesterol Fiasco [washingtonpost.com]? It takes 20 years to overturn junk science regulations, and 50 years to to get people to stop believing in junk science.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by brocksampson on Thursday March 05 2015, @10:25AM
I personally think that the preponderance of evidence supports my hypothesis that the positive health outcomes of a gluten-free diet are the result of everything but gluten, which people then incorrectly ascribe to a causal relationship between gluten and feeling bad. Am I right? Am I wrong? Who cares--if people want to buy gluten-free products, then let manufacturers market them. For the same reason, I'm all for GMO-free labeling--it's a marketing strategy, but who cares, people will pay more for GMO-free food. There should also be regulations to ensure labeling like "organic," "GMO-free," and "gluten-free" have meaning. However, when it comes to forcing the disclosure of GMO ingredients, I'm not so sure it is a clear-cut case. Forcing labeling to read "contains gluten" takes up space on nutritional labels and lends credibility to the pseudo science of gluten. Now, if we are able to prove that GMO foods themselves (and not just glyphosate) are bad for you (like trans fats), then go ahead and label things with "contains GMO ingredients," but not until then.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:22AM
Other than vague handwaving about 'frankenfood', just what is the supposed problem with GMO food?
Way I see it there are two possible complaints. That the GMO organisms will escape into the wild and contaminate the existing 'natural' (products of selective breeding) strains and/or the GMO versions of the edible portion is different and presumed dangerous.
Now lets look at the labeling argument vs these complaints. It does absolutely nothing about the first and is a poor solution to the second. Examine the edible product, compare it to the unmodified and see if/how it differs. If it is really different then it is not the same thing and should be called something else. Pure libertarian no force or fraud is enough to justify action. If it isn't different, the label is meaningless other than to scare the uneducated.
Meanwhile the more potentially dangerous issue is ignored. Are they a danger when/if they get into the wild? That does seem to be a valid concern but not outside the abilities of Science to answer with enough precision to base a sound risk assessment on, even to sell insurance policies to cover losses against. Yes there is risk, yes there is risk of error; this is life. Life is dangerous and risky and full of unexpected things. Demanding zero risk is just a fancy way of banning.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by deimtee on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:34AM
There are two aspects to the labelling.
One: Required labelling on GMO foods stating so. There are valid points to both sides, (although I lean towards the right to know - requiring labelling.)
Two: Prohibition of labelling GMO-Free foods as such. There are groups arguing that GMO free foods should not be allowed to say so on the label.
This is clearly an infringement on their right to free speech.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by frojack on Thursday March 05 2015, @06:42AM
Oh, whoever modded the jmoris post flamebait has to be hunted down and waterboarded. That was a straight up Hate-Mod!
Everything in there was a valid point of discussion.
THIS IS WHY a down mod has to inflict at least 5 points of karma penalty on the modder, and only 1 point on the poster. Are you paying attention MightyBuzzard? Why can we not post hate speech here, and expect to have any karma, but we allow hate-mods.?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @07:10AM
I agree, every mod that I don't agree with should cost the moderator 5 Karma. That'll increase the signal-to-noise ratio!
Or, we could, you know, do what we're doing now and trust the community to correct any legitimate moderation injustices now that everyone has 5 points every day, which seems to be working just fine.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Thursday March 05 2015, @02:31PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Insightful) by soylentsandor on Thursday March 05 2015, @05:52PM
I agree with all of the above. However:
While true, it also seems to imply we shouldn't ban GMO. Question is: why not?
It has the potential to generate huge profits for the companies selling the seeds and/or holding the patents. But at the same time, it creates a risk to society that is potentially a lot larger than said profits. And guess who will pay the damage once the shit hits the fan?
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @03:37AM
All regulation is bad! We live in a capitalist society, so why aren't these entrepreneur's rights to do whatever they want and let the free market sort it out being respected? It seems that a big chunk of the anti-GMO folks are also vehemently anti-regulation, so why are they in favor of government intrusion and regulation for this but not anything else? You're either a communist pig in wishing totalitarianism and the nanny state on everyone (how they describe regulation) or you're not, or at least that's how they frame the argument, without leaving any room for gray areas. So what gives?