SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd
In a big win for the biotech industry, the US Department of Agriculture says it won’t regulate plants whose genomes have been altered using gene-editing technology.
The official statement quotes the following:
Under its biotechnology regulations, USDA does not regulate or have any plans to regulate plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding techniques as long as they are not plant pests or developed using plant pests. This includes a set of new techniques that are increasingly being used by plant breeders to produce new plant varieties that are indistinguishable from those developed through traditional breeding methods. The newest of these methods, such as genome editing, expand traditional plant breeding tools because they can introduce new plant traits more quickly and precisely, potentially saving years or even decades in bringing needed new varieties to farmers.
"With this approach, USDA seeks to allow innovation when there is no risk present," said Secretary Perdue. "At the same time, I want to be clear to consumers that we will not be stepping away from our regulatory responsibilities. While these crops do not require regulatory oversight, we do have an important role to play in protecting plant health by evaluating products developed using modern biotechnology. This is a role USDA has played for more than 30 years, and one I will continue to take very seriously, as we work to modernize our technology-focused regulations."
"Plant breeding innovation holds enormous promise for helping protect crops against drought and diseases while increasing nutritional value and eliminating allergens," Perdue said. "Using this science, farmers can continue to meet consumer expectations for healthful, affordable food produced in a manner that consumes fewer natural resources. This new innovation will help farmers do what we aspire to do at USDA: do right and feed everyone."
Source: https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/610723/crispr-plants-wont-be-regulated/
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Sunday April 01 2018, @08:35AM (5 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 01 2018, @11:25AM (3 children)
Real plant breeding programs only recieve 2 or 5 years of patent protection for performing selective breeding for hybrids (at least in the US, I haven't checked local laws anywhere else.) But if you change that painful year long hand selected project into a CRISPR project? Now it is a 20 year technology patent during which time you can keep others from growing or reselling your seed, as well as all that cross contamination bullshit like Monsanto has been pulling for years. Furthermore there were other restrictions on the hybridization process that only effectively gave a year(2?) of protection until someone else can use your hybrid as part of a new hybrid project, at which point their hybrid can be patented without licensing your own. Reflect for a minute on why anyone would use natural means when unnatural means gives them a 4-fold to 10 fold increase in the duration of their patent protection.
America's IP system has been broken for far longer than most people realize and in many more ways than most people realize. Given that this lack of regulation will potentially allow submarine patents on seed without GMO labelling required, it is going to make the farming and especially organize farming industry a nightmare to work in unless this gets legally tested in court and made to follow the original seed hybridization patent rules.
Furthermore if you reflect on the difficulty of hybridizing plants and of then producing sufficient seed/grafts/etc to resell, the former should have the long of the two patent protections, since it would take you longer to successfully recoup costs, whereas the GMO'd variety, while expensive, takes far less time and space to design and market and is likely effectively cheaper and more efficient than older methods of crossing while also raising the bar above what the average farmer has access to, whether due to legal regulations in their area, cost of equipment, or personal education, making it just one more way the corporations/corporate farms can pull one over on the family owned farms while consolidating their control over society at all levels.
There are heirloom seed companies that have been trying to push back against this, but with the style of oversight and regulation this is going to lead to, it is very likely there will be ways to contaminate the heirloom strains without being too obvious about it and effectively monetizing it in the same way that the 'Google v. Oracle' case is going to make APIs rent-seeking for copyright law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 01 2018, @01:28PM
This is what happens when you suckle at the teat of evolution.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday April 01 2018, @08:11PM (1 child)
But the lack of regulation plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding techniques means that big agriculture simply can't prove that Joe Farmer who never bought or farmed near their seed stock didn't develop it by traditional methods. If Joe has a little side plot where he pretends to experiment, and keeps some minimalist records (fake or not) he can fight off any court claims.
Big AG will have to insert markers into their CRISPER products, and if THAT can't be done by traditional means then they suddenly DO fall under regulation.
I'm not so sure there is as much risk as you suggest here.
This traditional breeding methods approach has basically stopped happening in the real world. No farmers do this any more.
They never really did.
It was always done by scientists working for companies or Universities. University of Minnesota [umn.edu] has developed more commercial apple varieties than any other single source. They claim they still do it the old fashion way. Yeah, they patent and license their developed crops. A typical one time fee [nouvant.com] for some Apple varieties is $1.25 per tree.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 02 2018, @04:39PM
That's as silly as saying traditional sex has basically stopped happening just because scientists are doing it too. Puhleeze.
See: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/09/holland-agriculture-sustainable-farming/ [nationalgeographic.com]
Thus there's no real need for GMOs if the goal is to feed people. Companies are interested in GMOs because they can get long monopolies.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Sunday April 01 2018, @02:36PM
And in a positive sum game, which is what we are in economically, it's quite possible for everyone to gain.