CRISPR gene editing bypasses GMO label

[kpitcher]

A few recent articles have mentioned how the CRISPR gene editing technique - basically you cut out a chunk of DNA, or add some DNA, and the cell fixes itself - doesn't need to be labeled a GMO. Oh you can also patent these changes as they're not natural.

A recent sci american article discusses US mushroom growers testing a mushroom that stops bruising. It's been grown and tested, has yet to be eaten. However it wouldn't need to be labeled or tested as a GMO. Some potatoes modified with CRISPR have been growing in fields for a year.

They state dollar figures - to change the one enzyme it would be about 3 days work and a few hundred in materials. Not counting the labor or knowledge behind it. However that's amazing cheap. Also a little scary.


http://www.nature.com/news/crispr-tw...lation-1.18590

[Chester Copperpot]

ive said before they wont allow GMO labeling until they figure out a way to work around the law... here it is

[luctor-et-emergo]

You can thank Justices; Warren E. Burger ,Potter Stewart, Harry Blackmun, William Rehnquist, and John Paul Stevens for that.

In a 5–4 ruling, the court ruled in favor of Chakrabarty, holding that:

A live, human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Respondent's micro-organism constitutes a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within that statute.

(Wiki)


June 16, 1980. Is when this monster was unleashed.


The most scary aspect of this patent legislation and the main reason I am against ALL forms of patents on living organisms is that when a certain trait is lifted from species a to species b this can be patented. For instance, a resistance against some kind of pathogen can be patented. It is through this that a biotech giant can 'own' an entire food crop. Simply because they hold the patent on technology that makes it economically viable to grow. Since if you grow a variant that does not possess this resistance you will attain lower yields or will find it impossible to sell your variety because the market demands the patented one.

I'm not against GMO's. I think they can be pretty useful in some cases. I just think patenting living things is completely destroying the ecology of the world since variety in species is actually a major aspect of ecology. Monocultures are a great danger to human survival. Monocultures promote unstoppable plagues... Overpopulation is the problem, not lack of food. We humans are so smart we can 'solve' all problems yet we are too stupid to acknowledge that the world population can't grow indefinitely.

[angelatc]

There were patents on hybrids long before GMO technology existed. Which is one of the many reasons that labeling GMOs is dumb - it is just a technique.

LOL @ "overpopulation is the problem."

[Chester Copperpot]

There were patents on hybrids long before GMO technology existed. Which is one of the many reasons that labeling GMOs is dumb - it is just a technique.

LOL @ "overpopulation is the problem."

well for you its not a problem.. but for others that trust nature over man and fear blowback from man's actions it is a problem.

[angelatc]

well for you its not a problem.. but for others that trust nature over man and fear blowback from man's actions it is a problem.

If you trust nature over man, then overpopulation isn't ever going to be a problem. The excess population will die of starvation. That's how nature handles it.

Or maybe instead of using technology to create more efficient ways of growing and distributing food, we need the government to issue some of us breeding licenses? That doesn't seem very natural.

[Chester Copperpot]

If you trust nature over man, then overpopulation isn't ever going to be a problem. The excess population will die of starvation.

Yeah, so instead of using technology to create more efficient ways of growing and distributing food, we need the government to issue some of us breeding licenses?

I dont know why you insist on trying to start an argument over a difference of opinion.. and a false argument at that.. my preference on natural foods and medicine over man made versions doesnt translate into some desire for a license for anything..

I dont care who makes what, artificial or otherwise.. I just dont want to be lied about it.. I want to know if I am choosing between 2 types of apples that the one I pick isnt GMO.. I have no problem with you eating a GMO apple if that is your preference..

Just like a vaccine.. if you believe getting a chickenpox vaccine is best for your kids then thats what you do. and if i had kids Id have them play with the kid on the street who got chicken pox.

Youre cool on every other issue angela... in fact in all the years Ive been on here.. its only been maybe the last year that ive noticed your hostility with people seeking natural foods and meds.

[Schifference]

I dont know why you insist on trying to start an argument over a difference of opinion.. and a false argument at that.. my preference on natural foods and medicine over man made versions doesnt translate into some desire for a license for anything..

I dont care who makes what, artificial or otherwise.. I just dont want to be lied about it.. I want to know if I am choosing between 2 types of apples that the one I pick isnt GMO.. I have no problem with you eating a GMO apple if that is your preference..

Just like a vaccine.. if you believe getting a chickenpox vaccine is best for your kids then thats what you do. and if i had kids Id have them play with the kid on the street who got chicken pox.

Youre cool on every other issue angela... in fact in all the years Ive been on here.. its only been maybe the last year that ive noticed your hostility with people seeking natural foods and meds.

^^**THIS**^^

[Pauls' Revere]

Bump

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/th...?ocid=msedgntp

[merkelstan]

A few recent articles have mentioned how the CRISPR gene editing technique - basically you cut out a chunk of DNA, or add some DNA, and the cell fixes itself - doesn't need to be labeled a GMO.

This brings to light a debatable topic in libertarian theory.

Is it the proper libertarian position to support:

• A) Government mandated market intervention forcing a producer to label a genetically modified product a GMO? or
• B) Freedom of sellers to label their product whatever they want?

This gets into some grey territory, since we oppose "force or fraud", yet what constitutes fraud? ..Particularly in the case of novel products where little consensus has grown in the public?

- Are the new mRNA and Adenovirus based treatments for Sars-Cov2 "vaccines" or "gene therapy"?
- Is a cheesy-tasting bread spread made of whey and yeast 'cheese'?
- Is a GM potato on the supermarket shelf just a 'potato' or is it fraudulent to not label it as a 'genetically modified potato'?
- Is a savings account in a fractional-reserve bank fraudulent when depositor's money isn't really all there for withdrawal?

People tend to come down on different sides on individual issues based on personal critera and preferences.

We can say fraud is illegal, but the boundary is blurry in any advanced technological society, because in the modern world, often the buyer is willing to make the purchase with very little knowledge of the product's characteristics or market alternatives. Increasingly many transactions are characterized by a wide assymetry of information between purchaser and seller.