European Court Ruling Raises Hurdles For CRISPR Crops (sciencemag.org)

Okian Warrior shares a report from Science Magazine: Hopes for an easier regulatory road for genetic engineering in European agriculture were dashed by the Court of Justice of the European Union. In a closely watched decision, the court ruled that plants created with new gene-editing techniques that don't involve transferring genes between organisms -- such as CRISPR -- must go through the same lengthy approval process as traditional transgenic plants. Many researchers had argued that regulators should take a lighter touch when evaluating products created with the new technologies, but environmental groups and their allies successfully argued that they should be subject to the same EU rules that apply to other genetically modified organisms.

The case focused on crops that have been made resistant to herbicides without transferring genes from other species. The French government had passed a law exempting these new gene-edited crops from regulation under the European Union's directive on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which requires an assessment of risks to health and the environment, as well as labeling, tracking, and monitoring of the products. Confederation Paysanne, a French union in Bagnolet representing small farms, and eight other groups, sued and charged that the plants modified with gene-editing techniques should be regulated under the GMO directive, because they could cause significant harm. The court decided that gene-editing techniques are covered by the GMO directive because they "alter the genetic material of an organism in a way that does not occur naturally." (The court exempted conventional mutagenesis -- the unnatural use of chemicals or radiation to create mutations for plant breeding -- because it has "a long safety record.") It also said the new gene-editing techniques have risks that could be similar to those of transgenic engineering.

Comments

*Head asplodes*

[Nidi62]

The court exempted conventional mutagenesis -- the unnatural use of chemicals or radiation to create mutations for plant breeding -- because it has "a long safety record."

Maybe it's just because I've played so much Fallout, but I'll take genetically edited food over irradiated food any day....cutting out genes (and as the summary says, not adding genes-especially genes from other organisms)has to be inherently safer than dosing what's destined to be our food with radiation.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[Oswald McWeany]

The court exempted conventional mutagenesis -- the unnatural use of chemicals or radiation to create mutations for plant breeding -- because it has "a long safety record."

Maybe it's just because I've played so much Fallout, but I'll take genetically edited food over irradiated food any day....cutting out genes (and as the summary says, not adding genes-especially genes from other organisms)has to be inherently safer than dosing what's destined to be our food with radiation.

If the radiation is to create mutations in the seed, then that is not the same as irradiating your food. They're merely trying to increase the rate of mutations in hope that some are positive mutations.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[Anonymous Coward]

destined to be our food with radiation.

Making variations with mutagens doesn't involve putting those specific plants to the store selves. We eat those mutant children from underground, not the surviving parents who originally fled from the radiation.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[DontBeAMoran]

Somebody's playing X-Men or Fantastic 4 with seeds.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[Tx]

Firstly, they're not talking about irradiating the food that ends up on your plate. They're talking about using radiation to increase natural mutation rates in the process of developing new strains. Crops subsequently grown from those strains are in no way "irradiated".

Secondly, there are lots of different kinds of radiation. Sunlight is radiation, and it is mutagenic, hence skin cancer if you don't cover up. It's highly unlikely that they are using the kind of radiation that leaves things radioactive for this kind of thing, they'll be using gamma rays or weak x-rays. All your looking for is a mutation rate a few times higher than would occur naturally in sunlight, and the plants would at no stage be radioactive.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[fph il quozientatore]

True. Nevertheless, I still find it safer to eat food with one precisely crafted modification, rather than food that has gone through random mutations, including possibly dangerous unintended ones.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[jellomizer]

Our food has been trying to kill us for billions of years.
Much of the foods we eat is because they have built up some immunity or defense against pest that would most likely eat the food faster then we can. So all foods have a degree of toxicity in them.
GMO foods change the food so their toxins are better suited for the pests they will confront more.
For humans it is just as safe as non gmo foods. As these toxins that are in one plant that we eat are just transferred to an other.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[Anonymous Coward]

"has to be safer" - why? Mutations caused by radiation happen naturally all the time, "editing" never happened before. There is nothing inherently safe about it.

Re: *Head asplodes*

[Lije Baley]

Irradiated food is not radioactive. It's not like putting plutonium on your breakfast cereal.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[ShanghaiBill]

rather than food that has gone through random mutations

Every single thing you eat has random mutations, whether from background radiation, cosmic rays, viruses, errors during mitosis/meiosis, etc.

What the Europeans are doing is technophobic nonsense, with no basis in science. The courts should not be used to enforce superstitions.

Re: *Head asplodes*

[Nidi62]

It's not like putting plutonium on your breakfast cereal.

I prefer my radiation Russian style. I mix polonium in my tea.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[Oswald McWeany]

rather than food that has gone through random mutations

Every single thing you eat has random mutations, whether from background radiation, cosmic rays, viruses, errors during mitosis/meiosis, etc.

What the Europeans are doing is technophobic nonsense, with no basis in science. The courts should not be used to enforce superstitions.

I think there is definitely an irrational fear of GMO food in Europe; however, some caution is needed- when you're doing some of the things you're doing with CRISPR you're bypassing what would take, in some cases, millions of generations of selective breeding, to get a gene in place that doesn't naturally exist anywhere in that species.

There needs to be some common sense and oversight, to make sure, for example, pesticide resistance in a crop doesn't get crossed with a wild relative of the crop and spread to a wild population of an undesirable plant.

Yeah, that could happen with selective breeding too... but there would be many-many between generations where you'd probably catch that first.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[TechyImmigrant]

>Our food has been trying to kill us for billions of years.

That's why I don't eat plants.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[ShanghaiBill]

to make sure, for example, pesticide resistance in a crop doesn't get crossed with a wild relative of the crop and spread to a wild population of an undesirable plant.

The OBVIOUS way to ensure this doesn't happen is to edit out the pollen production so that the GMO plant IS NOT CAPABLE OF REPRODUCTION. The gene can't pass to the wild stock if there is nothing being passed.

This is known as a "terminator gene", and the anti-GMO activists vehemently objected to it, and were successful in getting terminator genes banned in both Europe and America.

Why? Answer: Because it removes one of their best objections to GMO. They want to make GMO intentionally MORE RISKY just so that they have stronger objections. They don't want GMO to be safe, they want it to be banned, at any cost.

The actions of these idiots are indefensible.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[Applehu Akbar]

Irradiating dead organisms to preserve food is totally safe, and if we weren’t such gibbering idiots when the R-word is mentioned would eliminate the salmonella recalls we seem to be getting weekly now. But that is not the kind of irradiation this article is talking about.

One of the standard techniques for inducing mutations in agricultural breeding is to blast crops with gamma radiation from a Cobalt-60 source. The label Luddites who won’t let us use modern genetic engineering techniques accept this as a form of conventional hybridization.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[Applehu Akbar]

Unfortunately there is no ISO standard for common sense in Brussels.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, including a terminator gene sounds like a pretty excellent way to create DRM for plants.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[Anonymous Coward]

make no doubt about it, a cow will trample you to death without a seconds hesitation, chickens would disembowel you if they were big enough. Pigs, you don't even want to know what pigs would do.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[ShanghaiBill]

On the other hand, including a terminator gene sounds like a pretty excellent way to create DRM for plants.

We already have that. Most seeds planted by 1st-world farmers are either GMO or hybrids, and new seed is purchased each year. For most crops, farmers do not save seeds from one year to the next.

3rd-world farmers routinely save seeds for planting, but this leads to far lower productivity. They would be much better off buying hybrid or GMO seeds annually. The higher yields and decreased inputs (insecticide, herbicide, and fertilizer) would way more than make up for the cost of the seeds.

With terminator genes, anyone who wanted to continue to replant traditional/heirloom seeds would still be able to do so, and would actually have more protection, since there would be no risk of inadvertent cross pollination from GMO stocks.

It is absurd that our current law REQUIRES the unwanted spreading of GMO pollen into the wind.

Re: *Head asplodes*

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that there is some superstition about GMO. My main complaint is that the corporations have a history of abuse and short sighted mistakes. It is not the research itself that scares me, it is the profit focused entities that carry it out.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[TechyImmigrant]

make no doubt about it, a cow will trample you to death without a seconds hesitation, chickens would disembowel you if they were big enough. Pigs, you don't even want to know what pigs would do.

I don't doubt it. That's why I buy my cows and chickens from the local tree-hugging supermarket. The pig would probably ask for his belly back when he found it in my fridge. I keep the car windows rolled up in rural areas.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Mr. Monsanto. Whatever you say.

Hint: if there weren't such huge commercial interests behind that, I'd tend to put some more trust in it. As it is, I know the ones taking decisions are more concerned about their purses than about my health, so I'll do whatever I can to keep them at a safe distance. Lobbying politicians and making ruckus in the streets *is* something I can do, so...

It's not as much technophobia as it is BigTech phobia. The latter comes from long and painful experience.

Re: *Head asplodes*

[guruevi]

We've edited genes on food for thousands of years. It's how we got so good a farming.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately there is no ISO standard for common sense in Brussels.

Ah, that's why many people hate Brussel Sprout so much!

Re:*Head asplodes*

[F.Ultra]

Mutations is just editing on a very large scale, which is the main issue here. Aka with mutation you get both the desirable traits and a bazillion others while with targeted editing you get just the desirable traits and nothing more.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[Anonymous Coward]

Animals created with cut-and-paste modifications should have the date of creation labeled in their eyes... In case that they reproduce by themselves.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[Anonymous Coward]

to make sure, for example, pesticide resistance in a crop doesn't get crossed with a wild relative of the crop and spread to a wild population of an undesirable plant.

The OBVIOUS way to ensure this doesn't happen is to edit out the pollen production so that the GMO plant IS NOT CAPABLE OF REPRODUCTION. The gene can't pass to the wild stock if there is nothing being passed.

According to biologists who work in the filed it's more complicated than that.

For example, due to the extreme complexity of genetics and evolution, and the frequent appearance of mutations, they understand that in millions of GMO seeds that have a so called 'terminator gene' there will be some that will still manage to reproduce.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[delt0r]

The courts should not be used to enforce superstitions.

Well in a democracy, that is kinda their job. If the majority have the same superstitions. Tyranny of the majority and all that. There is no legal requirement to have judgments based on science.

Re:*Head asplodes*

[mrclevesque]

Examples

Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

Maze of circular logic

[oh_my_080980980]

“To classify gene-edited crops as GMOs and equivalent to transgenic crops is completely incorrect by any scientific definition,” said Nick Talbot, a molecular geneticist at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom. “Precise modern gene-editing technologies allow accurate, predictable changes to be made in a genome.” http://www.sciencemag.org/news...

Translation:

"No, no, no, no. It's not a new number. It's--it's--it's just a changed number. See? It's not different. It's the same, just...changed."

Survey says:

"A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques (i.e., a genetically engineered organism)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The question was not about the precision of the modification. It was about it being modified. You've altered the genetic material, it means you've modified it! Hand back your degree.

Re:Maze of circular logic

[Anonymous Coward]

A million times this ^^^

I'm a molecular biologist / biochemist and yes CRISPR edited/modified or other way, should be treated as GMO and labeled as such. This is not because I'm against this new technology but the outcome is essentially the same and therefor the level playing field should be too. The majority of Uber opponents have nothings against Uber.. just against the lack of regulation for one type of "Taxis" but not the others.

Re:Maze of circular logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you read the article? (Nuclear|Chemical) mutation breeding is allowed under the regulation. Meaning random mutations is considered safe but not chirurgical editing (crispr/cas9, etc.). This is insane!

Re:Maze of circular logic

[Anonymous Coward]

so then under this logic traditional crossbreeds should be labeled as GMO as well

Re: Maze of circular logic

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is not. Nuclear/chemicals are used as natural process catalyst (accelerate evolution through random mutation) and damn, nature has been proved not safe for years (How many natural thing just kill you?). Random mutations without trials is never never safer than chirurgical editing with a lot of trials.

Re:Maze of circular logic

[Anonymous Coward]

If CRISPR/CAS9 is treated as GMO, so should be (nuclear|chemical) mutation breeding. That is the issue here. Random mutation is acceptable (even without human trials) but carefully edited DNA is unacceptable. Something is definitely wrong!

PS: I am Ph.D student in medical science.

Re:Maze of circular logic

[jabuzz]

This is the issue. So the clueless judges are saying it's find to blast away with nuclear/chemical mutation with mass genomics screening till I get the mutation I want at great expense and I don't need to label it as GMO. Noting that unless I do a full DNA sequence I will almost certainly get a bunch of other unwanted edits.

However if I make exactly the same change using CRISPR/Cas9 ir CRISPER/Cpf1 then I have to label it GMO. That just defies common sense. Then again to expect Judges anywhere in the world to grasp what is going on is asking a lot. Well it's not really asking a lot, if they don't get it they should not be ruling on it. However the percentage of judges with any scientific training is very low.

Is /. only about nature/sciencemag copy/pasting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is /. only about nature/sciencemag copy/pasting?

it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

how the corporations crying about "free market" want to take the most important feature - an INFORMED decision - away from the customers by hiding GMO content in products.

If it's such a great thing, the customers will surely decide to buy these products themselves.

Re:it's funny

[Megol]

That is a completely separate matter: products containing GMO over trace levels have to be marked as such anyway. And any GMO content, trace or not, have to be approved by the EU.

Re:it's funny

[bws111]

Except labeling something 'GMO' provides ZERO useful information (except to the torch-wielding villagers yelling 'kill the monster').

What could actually be USEFUL information would be exactly what proteins, etc are present. But then if it is important to know that, why is it not important to know if the exact same proteins, etc were created by some other method?

Re:it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

GMO content is useful for everyone who does not want to buy GMO products.
Nobody forces YOU to read the label if you don't care.
EU for once stood up for the people, which I applaud. You go ahead and buy whatever crap you want.

Re:it's funny

[CrimsonAvenger]

how the corporations crying about "free market" want to take the most important feature - an INFORMED decision - away from the customers by hiding GMO content in products.

Of course, it's not really an "informed decision" when all the info you have is "GMO". That's sort of like saying "we're building a new electric plant". Lot of difference between solar, hydro, coal, oil, gas, nuclear....

Re:it's funny

[bws111]

Yes, that would be the 'torch wielding villagers' (aka morons) that I mentioned. Name a SINGLE problem that generic 'GMO' causes. Just one.

Re:it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

morons are those, who try to take away information from people with different views... but that has become normal in today's America

Re:it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

When you breed something, it's still within the realm of nature. Nature does it anyway. But it's still within the ecosystem and the limitations from billions of years of evolution.

Gene editing skips the millions and millions of years that the ecosystem has to adjust - predators, disease or what have you that limits the organism.

And with GMO crops, it also allows for private interests to own the means of food production.
You want to plant? Monsanto will want to have a word with you.

And the whole Round-Up resistance is just blowing up in our faces, Super weeds

Nope, I want to know if it's GMO.

And where I live, we wouldn't use torches or pitch forks on the monster. We got us some guns.

Re:it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Less than 1% of population have reasonably good idea what protein is, "exactly what proteins" information has absolutely no value for them. And you want this on food labels? Weird.

Re:it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

so, which type of an electric plant do you want to have built right next to your house?

Re:it's funny

[ShanghaiBill]

What could actually be USEFUL information would be exactly what proteins, etc are present.

How would that be useful to the average consumer?

Re:it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

so you're cool with a complete unregulation of guns

but not GMO's, those are too dangerous

Re:it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a 500KW solar field in my backyard, does that count?

Re:it's funny

[ShanghaiBill]

GMO content is useful for everyone who does not want to buy GMO products.

But what if I don't want to buy food produced by left handed methodists? Why is there no label for that?

How about we allow GMO free food to be voluntarily labeled as such, and get rid of the stupid mandatory labeling requirements based on superstition and scaremongering? This is one thing that America is doing right.

Re:it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Well now that's not really the way it is now is it? Companies would be fine with an informed decision. But what they get is a bunch of uneducated nut bags saying something is bad without actually taking the time to understand why it might not be bad. So since there are so many of these people, they are stuck with:

- We will be unable to provide food for everyone once we reach some population level unless we make changes.

- We try to make changes to enable more food production and nutbags go nuts and use legislation to block new products.

The food industry is stuck between these two things.

Re:it's funny

[ShanghaiBill]

Name a SINGLE problem that generic 'GMO' causes. Just one.

GMO maize (corn) can be grown without pesticides, thus reducing the profits of insecticide manufacturers.

GMO soybeans are more suited to "no till" farming that reduces erosion and nitrate and phosphate runoff into lakes and rivers. This reduces the profits of fertilizer manufacturers.

GMO "golden" rice contains vitamins that are responsible for reducing blindness in 3rd world children. This reduces the profits of white cane manufacturers, but fortunately for them (but unfortunately for the children), the EU has banned imports from poor countries that grow golden rice.

Re:it's funny

[Applehu Akbar]

We already do this! Flat-earthers can already seek out products labeled No GMO if they wish. The only reason they want to force labeling on the rest of us is to give consumers the impression that GMO is an ingredient, like salt, that people should avoid.

Re:it's funny

[bws111]

I didn't say is would be useful, I said it could be useful. An example would be to someone that has an allergy. On the other hand, a generic 'GMO' label is useful to nobody.

Re:it's funny

[drinkypoo]

Obviously solar, although I do want to be sure that their inverters are quality and thus using potted transformers. Inverter hum is annoying AF.

Re:it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

sure, once it produces a couple of hundred megawatts of power like the electric plants from your example

Re:it's funny

[ShanghaiBill]

An example would be to someone that has an allergy.

Labelling for common allergens (milk, eggs, soy, nuts, etc) is already a requirement.

Re:it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

So, sell it like "Vitamins" or "Electrolytes" or whatever. If it's so great, people will buy it.
Just let *them* fucking decide what they buy.

Re:it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

You're obviously confusing corporations with charity.

Re: it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's so safe, label it and stfu. Move on.

Re: it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice logical fallacy.

Re:it's funny

[F.Ultra]

Yes but that is also fucked up by the anti-GMO people. Over here in Europe every approved food additive gets assigned a E-number with the intent that people that are allergic to say "Potassium ferrocyanide" can much easily look for E536 in the ToC which is handy if #1 the ToC is small and #2 considering all the possible different ways people can spell long chemical names.

However the very same people that are very anti GMO is also very anti additives in food and in Europe they have in particular connected this with the E-numbering so some manufacturers have started to label their products as "E-number free" which in most cases just means that they have reverted back to write "potassium ferrocyanide" on their ToC and thus life for allergic people have taken a turn for the worse.

Idiots

[tsa]

I think this decision is simply idiotic. Gene editing will happen anyway anywhere on the planet and people will get rich from it. If I were the EU I'd make sure this happened within my places of jurisdiction so we benefit from it. We missed the gene editing boat in the 1990s due to a similar decision, and now we do it again. Unbelievable. This decision is clearly made to please the public who have no idea what genetic modification means, other than that it's 'scary' and 'unnatural.' This is not the way to do politics. Often what people want is not what is good for the people.

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Where does it say gene editing is not allowed?
It just needs to be evaluated to be safe, just like every other fucking new thing being sold on the market.

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Same with carbon emission. Planet is screwed anyway, it might as well be people in EU who get rich from it. No, they have to jump on "save the planet" bandwagon. Idiots.

Re:Idiots

[Rick Schumann]

Consider this: Monsanto created GMO seeds that were protected Intellectual Property, then had to sue some farmers, in adjacent fields, who weren't purchasing them because cross polination had migrated the GMO genes into their crops. Also consider this: corporations spend many many millions of dollars developing GMO versions of plants, and since they aren't non-profits, they (and more to the point their investors and stockholders) expect timely return-on-investment -- therefore they'll rush things to market, much as Monsanto did, regardless of possible consequences. Pharmaceutical companies do this every day, having their legal departments weigh possible lawsuits due to bad reactions or death resulting from use of a drug against overall profitability. The difference here is that GMO crops are literally (as described above) the genie released from the bottle; once it's out in the wild, you're not getting it back, it's out there for good. So considering all the above, what makes you think that a profit-oriented company, armed with a device and method to allow them to modify the genes of pretty much anything, aren't going to rush something to market that may have unintended and disasterous long-term effects once it's out in Earth's biosphere? I personally used to worry about all the GMO crops that were being introduced but I don't waste the energy anymore because it's too late now, they're out there, and if in another 20 or 30 years we see some terrible unintended side-effect of the gene editing that causes a major disaster, then what are we to do? Meanwhile the EU is being smarter about it than our own legislators here in the U.S. have been (or less corrupted by corporate influences?) and are thinking about the possible long-term effects, and doing what they can to make it as safe as possible without totally stifling innovation. The fact that some bad actors in non-EU countries may do reckless things with the technology is irrelevant, and at best we can hope that there aren't scientists out there who are willing to be totally irresponsible and reckless with the technology themselves. It may all be for nothing but I applaud the EU for being careful where it counts.

Re:Idiots

[Cyberax]

Monsanto hasn’t sued farmers who simply got some cross-pollinated crops. Not once. Not a single time.

Re:Idiots

[tsa]

If you were right GMOs would not be sold here, but as far as I know they are. We also have much stricter legislation for food and medication. And GMOs have been in use for over twenty years now and we still don't see many, if any, negative effects yet.

I think gene modification is a great technology that should be exploited, but there should be strict rules on how to handle it. Just outright forbidding it, like the EU has done now again is putting your head in the sand.

Re:Idiots

[Applehu Akbar]

That’s a legal problem that has nothing to do with GMO technology. Plant patents have been around, and have been litigated over, for the last hundred years.

Re:Idiots

[bws111]

Plants have been patentable since the 1930s. The ability to patent seeds has nothing to do with GMO.

Re:Idiots

[Tinsoldier314]

The case is widely cited or referenced by the anti-GM community in the context of a fear of a company claiming ownership of a farmer’s crop based on the inadvertent presence of GM pollen grain or seed.[25][26] "The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 95–98% pure Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence. The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeiser’s active participation, saying ‘...none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop’" – in other words, the original presence of Monsanto seed on his land in 1997 was indeed inadvertent, but the crop in 1998 was entirely purposeful.[27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... If anyone wants more information on the case he's citing, it's well documented on wikipedia.

Re:Idiots

[DRJlaw]

The difference here is that GMO crops are literally (as described above) the genie released from the bottle; once it's out in the wild, you're not getting it back, it's out there for good. So considering all the above, what makes you think that a profit-oriented company, armed with a device and method to allow them to modify the genes of pretty much anything, aren't going to rush something to market that may have unintended and disasterous long-term effects once it's out in Earth's biosphere? I personally used to worry about all the GMO crops that were being introduced but I don't waste the energy anymore because it's too late now, they're out there, and if in another 20 or 30 years we see some terrible unintended side-effect of the gene editing that causes a major disaster, then what are we to do? Meanwhile the EU is being smarter about it than our own legislators here in the U.S. have been (or less corrupted by corporate influences?)

Yet "[t]he court exempted conventional mutagenesis -- the unnatural use of chemicals or radiation to create mutations for plant breeding -- because it has 'a long safety record.'"

Are you ok with the genie being released so long as it's a random genie, and some unknown number of the genie's friends (because, let's face it, why would there be only one mutation after such a process) are released as well?

And if you're concerned about random genies, then you'll love the effects of viruses, UV light, background radiation, and just plain growing outside...

People are OK with one or both of those, but targeted gene editing with a known gene, that's where they want to draw the line. The most predictable and testable outcome of them all.

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

From a source:

The idea, however, is inspired by a real-world event. Back in 1999, Monsanto sued a Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, for growing the company's Roundup-tolerant canola without paying any royalty or "technology fee." Schmeiser had never bought seeds from Monsanto, so those canola plants clearly came from somewhere else.

Re:Idiots

[pigwin32]

" it was not just a few seeds from a passing truck". Really it's ok for a few seeds from a passing truck to contaminate your non-GMO crop? If you have a problem with that, perhaps because you're trying to grow crops that rely on organic/biodynamic principles where the soil biology is important as opposed to pouring pesticides/herbicides onto it, then you really just need to get over it. Hey we're having a gun fight over here and yeah there might be a few stray bullets but you just need to get over it.

Re:Idiots

[F.Ultra]

He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998

This is a little different from just being cross-pollinated.

Re:Idiots

[F.Ultra]

The court did not say that it would have been OK if a few seeds from a passing truck had contaminated his field, that remark was simply to state that this was not the case (since that is what Schmeiser claimed had happened).

Easy solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

...let them pay more for food imports.

Re: Easy solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Solution to what?

Shotgun surgery: okay; Scapels: no

[swillden]

This decision makes no sense. First, there's a ridiculous amount of respect given to "natural" processes, as though they're anything other than purely random. But the really dumb part is considering targeted, controlled editing to be more dangerous than dousing plants in mutagenic chemicals and/or radiation in order to accelerate selective breeding. In the former case, we may not have a perfect understanding of what the change is going to do, but in the latter case we have no idea what the changes even are, we just know that there are orders of magnitude more of them than normal.

It's like deciding that it's safer to do an appendectomy with a shotgun than with a scalpel.

Re:Shotgun surgery: okay; Scapels: no

[Anonymous Coward]

This is right on spot.

Re:Shotgun surgery: okay; Scapels: no

[Anonymous Coward]

no, it makes perfect sense. The EU likes to say they are on the side of science, but in reality, they're on the side of business. And business doesn't give a fuck about science beyond how that science makes the business money.

GMO's make lots of money. But they don't make them by selling their product, they make it by making other products (organic) worth more.

Its funny that no one is talking about that OTHER unscientific thing: 'Organic' food. Last I checked, all food has carbon in it, so all food is organic by definition, but that's only what 'organic' means to educated people. To everyone else, it means 'not GMO', which I guess means it doesn't have poison in it or something.

See, if the EU was to rule that gmo's are just as safe as any other food, then the organic lobby would lose money, and since you've unnaturally expanded your organic lobby into monopoly-levels by scaring people into buying it, they aren't having any of that. So GMO's need to stay illegal.

Re: Shotgun surgery: okay; Scapels: no

[Anonymous Coward]

"no, it makes perfect sense. The EU likes to say they are on the side of science, but in reality, they're on the side of business. And business doesn't give a fuck about science beyond how that science makes the business money."
 
European countries also have a deeply ingrained food culture that shouldn't be discounted.

Re:Shotgun surgery: okay; Scapels: no

[drinkypoo]

Its funny that no one is talking about that OTHER unscientific thing: 'Organic' food. Last I checked, all food has carbon in it, so all food is organic by definition, but that's only what 'organic' means to educated people.

Organic is a terrible name. Let's just get agreeing with that out of the way right now. But organic farming practices, as envisioned by their creators, are utterly sound. The underlying premise is that in a community producing its own food, soil health is tied to the health of the community, and systems must be cyclical in order to be functional. Specifically, both human and animal waste must be returned to the fields which produce food. This is perfectly safe when done correctly, or at least it was before the invention of pharmaceuticals which persist even though sewage treatment. And in fact, although there was a significant lull where we did little of it in the modern world, it is now once again typical for sewage sludge to be treated and converted to fertilizer.

Governments have taken over the right to define what is or is not "organic" farming, e.g. "USDA Organic". But organic farming is more than simply choosing fertilizers and pesticides off of an approved list. It's also a collection of practices.

To the average consumer, "organic" currently means no-GMO, and using only "natural" pesticides and fertilizers. But that misunderstanding is due to a concerted effort by corporate farming and by government alike.

The GMO industry is blinded by greed

[Anonymous Coward]

If the GMO industry actually tried to produce useful strains, instead of the usual "let's make it more resistant to poison so it's the only thing that grows after soaking soils in chemicals", it may find more sympathetic European ears

As it is no one here except for Bayer actually wants to help the agro industry poison European soil and European people. All for a few years of improved yields, that will be negated as soon as pests grow poison-resistant, while humans get sick long-term (because humans do not reproduce fast enough to adapt to those "innovations").

Re:The GMO industry is blinded by greed

[bws111]

However, according to the EU, if you can create the same resistance to the same poison by bombarding some seeds with radiation or chemicals, then it is perfectly safe.

Re: The GMO industry is blinded by greed

[Anonymous Coward]

So far other methods have not achieved the same poison-friendly level as GMOs

If someone is stupid enough to go for it, expect the result to be treated as GMO in Europe (like CRISP were, they are the result of the usual common law techy urge to wiggle out of legal obligations on technicalities, and as usual non techy judges are not impressed)

testing how?

[Odyss]

Will be interesting to see how they will regulate it,,for GMO you can easily test for the transgenic protein. Gene editing for the removal of an existing protein will require testing for the absence of that protein,,more difficult, especially in mixed grain exported commodity barge, trains, trucks,etc. Like testing for Organic,,can't be done in a lab

Re:testing how?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason it's easy to test for GMO products is that the company who owns the rights to said GMO product has also introduces a marker gene. They test for the marker, and that's how they protect their "property" by suing to oblivion any producer who dares use their product without permission. Monsanto and their ilk are pure evil, period.

Do you think equally evil corporations involved in other forms of gene editing would not be interested in protecting their property the same way, and would not use similar genetic trick to make it easy to test for their product ?

Many people who oppose every form of genetically modified food, like me, don't do it based on scientific or technological basis, they do it because of the moral and ethical implications of totally amoral corporations obtaining total control over global food production.

Are we there yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are babies being born with flippers now? or are just regular flipper babies.

This is about protectionism

[schwit1]

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/1...

The European Commission has long attempted to justify its strict health and environmental regulations as necessary to protect the public from uncertain risk associated with genetically modified crops. The World Bank report debunks this myth and offers empirical evidence of the commission's true motives.

What is really behind the commission's stringent regulations is European industry's comparative disadvantage in the use of genetically modified, or GM, crop technology. In drawing this conclusion, the study points to the significant role played by European industry in lobbying for protectionist barriers.

Re:This is about protectionism

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything, this disadvantages European industry. The majority of the GMO industry is based in the EU.

Knowing the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

EU court will probably put an "I agree" form on the front of all crops so you must agree twice before eating.

EU - keeping the world safe one useless I Agree button at a time.

Could you tell the difference?

[Gilgaron]

Transgenic sequences would stick out, but if you CRISPR away just a few things here and there, and pass it off as conventionally mutated, it doesn't seem to me they'd be able to tell very easily. It'd be unethical, but seems like the type of thing a tiny LLC could perpetually license to a big firm before inexplicably going bankrupt and burning down... if only they'd thought to put their development documents in offsite archive...

make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I think people are over-cautious with GMOs, but whatever. The EU has its policy for GMOs and there's no serious reason CRISPR should be an exception.

*proven safe*

[DrYak]

Nuclear/chemicals are used as natural process catalyst (accelerate evolution through random mutation) and damn, nature has been proved not safe for years (How many natural thing just kill you?). Random mutations without trials is never never safer than chirurgical editing with a lot of trials.

The question is not whether the random mutation are more or less safe compared to chirurgical editing. (Over time, crispr will probably turn out to be safer)

The question is that random mutation have always been happening forever. And radiation has been used to increase these mutations in a slightly better controlled fashion since almost as long as radiations have been studied (what do you think did inspire all these super-hero origin stories involving radiation ?).
So we have a rough idea and several decades of practical experience about rate at which things coming out of this are going to kill you.
With all this data, it can be considered proven.

Crispr/Cas9 has been in use for less than a decade. That's a lot less than the decades of radiation accelerating natural mutations. That's a tiny blimp since natural random mutations occur. We don't have a lot of data yet. We can't prove that it has a certain level of safety. Maybe after 20 years, we'll end up noticing that there are some unforeseen consequences.

The EU logic : let's put strong regulation on it until we know more about them.

(Note: I'm just explaining the logic. I don't necessarily agree with it).

Good

[pubwvj]

"must go through the same lengthy approval process as traditional transgenic plants."

Yeah!

CRISPER is just as dangerous if not more so.

CRISPR crops

[Tony Isaac]

Yum!