6 ms·

Basically what this guidance says is that if you're CRISPR'ing food that could have been created through traditional cross breeding, then it's auto-approved and

Basically what this guidance says is that if you're CRISPR'ing food that could have been created through traditional cross breeding, then it's auto-approved and falls under the USDA regulatory sphere. If you're creating food that could not be created through traditional cross breeding, it needs approval and falls under the FDA's regulatory sphere. Pretty reasonable if you ask me.

cma 9y ago
While reasonable, a filename typo couldn't result in inserting genes from the chickenpox genome into a potato with traditional cross breeding, whereas it could with CRISPR (at least at some point with digitally specified synthesis like in the Venter artificial cell). By having an approval/verification step they could avoid accidents (not that chickenpox potato is a realistic scenario or threat).
- folli 9y ago
  Resequencing of the modified genome is SOP, how else would you check that the right gene has been inserted/deleted in the right locus in the right way?
  - candiodari 9y ago
    Simple: let it grow. If it turns into purple zombies and eats the town (or otherwise shows unexpected gene expression), you failed. A variation on this is to also have it do an easy to check change, like various forms of fluorescence, then check for the easy to check ones and assume that if that one happened, the important one happened too.
    - malnourish 9y ago
      Not all genes are expressed in the phenotype.
      - candiodari 9y ago
        Well, true, but when you're changing genes, you're really looking to change the phenotype.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  Things are a little more complicated than that...for one thing, pretty much all genetics work done today requires customized primers for the process of creating lots of identical DNA strands. If you accidentally sent off for chickenpox primers and used them with DNA from your gene donor vegetable/fruit/flower/jellyfish/etc, you would not get chickenpox DNA. Further, I believe that the way DNA strands are identified and recovered is by estimating their size in base pairs and comparing that to the expected result. And samples from the results are sequenced to verify their accuracy, anyways. I believe that there are also similar targeting steps with the CAS-9 proteins, but I don't know very much about this subject. I do think that I know enough to say that accidentally clicking the wrong file will not put chickenpox into a potato anytime soon, though.
TangoTrotFox 9y ago
I don't think it is, because the acceleration of the process radically changes the viable range of intentionally targeted outcomes. People focus on the positive of these modifications but seem to forget that the purpose of companies in gene modification is not to create healthier food, but to increase their profit margins. This conflict is a regular one, but it's made even worse by the fact that, for whatever reason, some of the most historically unethical companies, such as Monsanto, Bayer, and DuPont are the primary players in genetically engineering foodstuffs. So for instance our bodies have not caught up to our technological and socioeconomic developments that have practically eliminated food scarcity. So we enjoy things that make no sense to enjoy, presumably as a product of evolution, like high calorie foodstuffs that at one time would have been key to survival, yet today are a great way to shorten your life expectancy. Imagine now you eat two pineapples. One tastes incredibly sweet and like nothing you've had before. And you find yourself craving more and more of it. The other tastes well... like a pineapple. The former is going to increase sales at the cost of healthfulness. And of course for fruits and vegetables, nutritional labels are completely optional. And of course the FDA has come down hard against labeling of genetically engineered foods. The customer would have nothing to go on but their horribly flawed and exploitable intuition and responses to the foods. And this is also just at a base level. Somehow we also develop addictions to things that make no sense, evolutionary or otherwise, to get addicted to. Would it be hypothetically possible to begin to translate this response to traditional foodstuffs? It'd be incredibly profitable if so. And we might never even see anything overt happen. Instead we'd just see everybody's waistlines continue to increase seemingly to no end without immediately apparent explanation, as a country feverishly ate itself to death. At this point, aren't people realizing that just trusting companies to behave ethically is not a good idea? Even moreso when that behavior and the most profitable behavior often come directly into conflict.
- LifeLiverTransp 9y ago
  Even that realization of who to trust and who not is hacked allready. Russia showed us how to do it- throw some fog grenades, and the blind can lead the blind again.. Subvert all the things.
- Fins 9y ago

cma 9y ago

While reasonable, a filename typo couldn't result in inserting genes from the chickenpox genome into a potato with traditional cross breeding, whereas it could with CRISPR (at least at some point with digitally specified synthesis like in the Venter artificial cell). By having an approval/verification step they could avoid accidents (not that chickenpox potato is a realistic scenario or threat).

folli 9y ago
Resequencing of the modified genome is SOP, how else would you check that the right gene has been inserted/deleted in the right locus in the right way?
- candiodari 9y ago
  Simple: let it grow. If it turns into purple zombies and eats the town (or otherwise shows unexpected gene expression), you failed. A variation on this is to also have it do an easy to check change, like various forms of fluorescence, then check for the easy to check ones and assume that if that one happened, the important one happened too.
  - malnourish 9y ago
    Not all genes are expressed in the phenotype.
    - candiodari 9y ago
      Well, true, but when you're changing genes, you're really looking to change the phenotype.
leggomylibro 9y ago
Things are a little more complicated than that...for one thing, pretty much all genetics work done today requires customized primers for the process of creating lots of identical DNA strands. If you accidentally sent off for chickenpox primers and used them with DNA from your gene donor vegetable/fruit/flower/jellyfish/etc, you would not get chickenpox DNA. Further, I believe that the way DNA strands are identified and recovered is by estimating their size in base pairs and comparing that to the expected result. And samples from the results are sequenced to verify their accuracy, anyways. I believe that there are also similar targeting steps with the CAS-9 proteins, but I don't know very much about this subject. I do think that I know enough to say that accidentally clicking the wrong file will not put chickenpox into a potato anytime soon, though.

TangoTrotFox 9y ago

I don't think it is, because the acceleration of the process radically changes the viable range of intentionally targeted outcomes. People focus on the positive of these modifications but seem to forget that the purpose of companies in gene modification is not to create healthier food, but to increase their profit margins. This conflict is a regular one, but it's made even worse by the fact that, for whatever reason, some of the most historically unethical companies, such as Monsanto, Bayer, and DuPont are the primary players in genetically engineering foodstuffs. So for instance our bodies have not caught up to our technological and socioeconomic developments that have practically eliminated food scarcity. So we enjoy things that make no sense to enjoy, presumably as a product of evolution, like high calorie foodstuffs that at one time would have been key to survival, yet today are a great way to shorten your life expectancy. Imagine now you eat two pineapples. One tastes incredibly sweet and like nothing you've had before. And you find yourself craving more and more of it. The other tastes well... like a pineapple. The former is going to increase sales at the cost of healthfulness. And of course for fruits and vegetables, nutritional labels are completely optional. And of course the FDA has come down hard against labeling of genetically engineered foods. The customer would have nothing to go on but their horribly flawed and exploitable intuition and responses to the foods. And this is also just at a base level. Somehow we also develop addictions to things that make no sense, evolutionary or otherwise, to get addicted to. Would it be hypothetically possible to begin to translate this response to traditional foodstuffs? It'd be incredibly profitable if so. And we might never even see anything overt happen. Instead we'd just see everybody's waistlines continue to increase seemingly to no end without immediately apparent explanation, as a country feverishly ate itself to death. At this point, aren't people realizing that just trusting companies to behave ethically is not a good idea? Even moreso when that behavior and the most profitable behavior often come directly into conflict.

LifeLiverTransp 9y ago
Even that realization of who to trust and who not is hacked allready. Russia showed us how to do it- throw some fog grenades, and the blind can lead the blind again.. Subvert all the things.
Fins 9y ago