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: 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.