SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(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?