SoylentNews

frojack writes:

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.

.