4 ms·

The reason why these kinds of food will not be regulated is fairly simple; unlike previous GMOs, there is no way to tell them apart from 'naturally' bred counte

The reason why these kinds of food will not be regulated is fairly simple; unlike previous GMOs, there is no way to tell them apart from 'naturally' bred counterparts. A regulatory regime would have to solely rely on the developer's honesty, which isn't really viable.

jonny_eh 9y ago
How is the resulting product different from other GMOs?
- folli 9y ago
  Using more traditional techniques, you insert a selection marker (e.g. an antibiotic resistance) which helps you selecting clones where the modification successfully took place (all the clones which do not have the antibiotic resistance will die after applying the antibiotic, leaving only clones where the modification was successful). In a next step this marker is usually removed, but this still leaves some "scars" (e.g. so called "FRT scars", a short DNA sequence), that could theoretically be used to prove that modifications were made. Because CRISPR-Cas9 is very efficient, these steps are not needed anymore, so in theory there are no artifacts which would hint that any "non-natural" modifications would have occurred.
  - inciampati 9y ago
    It's efficient but not so precise and efficient that the modifications can't be seen as different that the background genome.
    - gravelc 9y ago
      That isn't really correct. If you delete a section of DNA, then the difference is that piece of DNA has been excised. Given that excision (or duplication) can occur naturally, there is no way of telling whether the change is due to CRISPR or not. It doesn't leave tell-tale signs. If there were a strict regulatory regime, there's simply no way of enforcing compliance. Of course it's simple when you put in something that's obviously exogenous - cheap genome sequencing will pick it up, hence why that will be regulated. Anything else, and you're relying on an honesty system.
    - folli 9y ago
      The precision will undoubtedly be increased. Remember that the system has been discovered approx. 10 years ago and the idea to use it for genome modifications (especially Cas9 from Streptococcus pyogenes) is only a couple of years old.
- mirimir 9y ago
  Because they wouldn't be adding genes from other species.

jonny_eh 9y ago

How is the resulting product different from other GMOs?

folli 9y ago
Using more traditional techniques, you insert a selection marker (e.g. an antibiotic resistance) which helps you selecting clones where the modification successfully took place (all the clones which do not have the antibiotic resistance will die after applying the antibiotic, leaving only clones where the modification was successful). In a next step this marker is usually removed, but this still leaves some "scars" (e.g. so called "FRT scars", a short DNA sequence), that could theoretically be used to prove that modifications were made. Because CRISPR-Cas9 is very efficient, these steps are not needed anymore, so in theory there are no artifacts which would hint that any "non-natural" modifications would have occurred.
- inciampati 9y ago
  It's efficient but not so precise and efficient that the modifications can't be seen as different that the background genome.
  - gravelc 9y ago
    That isn't really correct. If you delete a section of DNA, then the difference is that piece of DNA has been excised. Given that excision (or duplication) can occur naturally, there is no way of telling whether the change is due to CRISPR or not. It doesn't leave tell-tale signs. If there were a strict regulatory regime, there's simply no way of enforcing compliance. Of course it's simple when you put in something that's obviously exogenous - cheap genome sequencing will pick it up, hence why that will be regulated. Anything else, and you're relying on an honesty system.
  - folli 9y ago
    The precision will undoubtedly be increased. Remember that the system has been discovered approx. 10 years ago and the idea to use it for genome modifications (especially Cas9 from Streptococcus pyogenes) is only a couple of years old.
mirimir 9y ago
Because they wouldn't be adding genes from other species.