[Tanada]

An interesting write up on the complicated history of Golden Rice.

The True Story of the Genetically Modified Superfood That Almost Saved Millions

The cover of the July 31, 2000, edition of Time magazine pictured a serious-looking bearded man surrounded by a wall of greenery: the stems, leaves, and stalks of rice plants. The caption, in large block lettering, read, “This rice could save a million kids a year.”

The man in question was Ingo Potrykus, a professor of plant sciences at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, in Zurich, where Albert Einstein had studied and taught. The rice plants around him, although the joint products of many minds and hands, had been largely inspired by him. Their kernels were not the usual plain white grains of rice. Instead, they had a distinct golden hue, the color of daffodils. When spread out on a black surface, they looked like nothing so much as tiny yellow gemstones.

Link

[GHung]

Let them eat cake carrots.

[Tanada]

Pictures and embedded links at link below quote.

Scotland and UK governments split over gene-edited food

Scotland should not have food products "forced" on it because of the easing of regulations around gene editing, a government minister has said.

The UK government has introduced a Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill which would set different rules from the EU following Brexit.

But the idea has been dismissed by environment secretary Mairi McAllan.

She has written to UK environment secretary George Eustice and Scottish Secretary Alister Jack, saying Scotland would not make the same changes as England if the bill passed.

Ms McAllan said the Scottish government "will not accept any constraint on the exercise of its devolved powers to set standards within devolved policy areas".

Gene editing allows scientists to change a plant or animal's DNA.

Scientists can engineer crops that are more disease or drought resistant, without adding genetic material from another species.

Under the UK's internal market act, anything approved for sale in one part of the UK must be available across the whole of the UK.

Tomatoes developed by scientists in Norwich to produce high amounts of vitamin D could be among the first gene-edited produce to go on sale.

However, Scotland and Wales could potentially use their powers to restrict the use of genetically edited produce.

In her letter, Ms McAllan said: "If the UK government is determined to press ahead with this legislation, it must take steps to ensure that its revisions to the definition of a GMO (genetically modified organism) do not force products on Scotland which do not meet standards here without the consent of the Scottish Parliament."

Gene-edited tomatoes that boost vitamin D are among the foods that could be commercially developed

She also raised concerns about the impact of the bill on Scotland's food exports to the EU.

"As your impact assessment for the Genetic Technologies (Precision Breeding) Bill acknowledges, removing gene-edited products from England's GM regulatory regime would mean divergence from the EU approach and as such could have implications for compliance costs and future trade," she wrote.

"The impact assessment also raises the prospect that new trade barriers could come in the form of checks and certification requirements on UK food exports entering the EU's single market.

"It states that this would not only affect products exported to the EU which contain precision-bred plant material, but also those in the same product categories which do not."

In turning down the UK government's offer to include Scotland in its gene editing scheme, the Scottish government is not saying "never".

Its preference is to wait for an EU-wide review of the technology, rather than to press ahead, with England, using the policy-making freedom that Brexit allows.

That is partly political - SNP ministers opposed Brexit and want to stay closely aligned to EU rules in the hope Scotland can one day rejoin the union as an independent country.

There's also a more practical consideration - that divergence could lead to new trade barriers with the European single market if it wants to keep gene-edited produce out.

The constitutional flashpoint is the operation of UK single market rules that mean any gene-edited produce approved in England must automatically be allowed into the Scottish market.

Holyrood ministers hate how that could cut across their powers to regulate what's suitable for sale and are seeking an exemption, without saying what action they might take if they don't get one.

Presentational grey line

Gene editing is supported by the National Farmers Union (NFU) in Scotland but Scottish ministers have consistently railed against it, aiming to keep as close as it can to EU regulations.

However, the EU has recently launched a consultation on bringing forward similar legislation for plants, food and feed produced from new genomic technologies.

UK cabinet minister George Eustice previously wrote to First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, saying the new bill provided "the opportunity to make the UK the best place in the world to invest in Agritech innovation".

He said: "Outside the EU we are free to follow the science.

"These precision technologies allow us to speed up the breeding of plants that have natural resistance to diseases and better use of soil nutrients so we can have higher yields with fewer pesticides and fertilisers.

"The UK has some incredible academic centres of excellence and they are poised to lead the way."

BBC

[Tanada]

Germany’s Environment Minister and Green Party stalwart rebukes EU’s hopes to relax crop gene editing rules, invokes precautionary principle

German Environment Minister Steffi Lemke on [June 13] rebuffed the European Commission’s plan to propose new rules for crops bred using so-called new genomic techniques like CRISPR-Cas9, saying it’s not necessary.

“I see no need for re-regulation,” Lemke declared.

The topic of how to regulate new genomic techniques, or NGTs, is controversial, with proponents arguing they don’t pose the same risks as traditional genetically modified organisms and therefore should be treated differently, while some scientists and green groups warn there are still too many unknowns about their impacts.

The Commission is planning to propose a new legal framework for NGTs separate from the existing GMO rules they now fall under, currently expected to land next year.

Lemke, who also serves as Germany’s consumer protection minister, said that any new set of rules that Brussels puts out “must continue to include mandatory labeling,” and be underpinned by the EU’s precautionary principle of erring on the side of caution in food safety.

“Once an NGT is released to the environment, it is almost impossible to remove it,” she said. “Potential risks not only to the plants but also to ecosystems and biodiversity must be identified and evaluated precisely.”

LINK

[Tanada]

Short video clip of text in link below quote from MSNBC

Developer of Golden Rice says genetically modified crops are essential for food security as global warming makes crops more vulnerable

Nafees Meah, regional representative for South Asia for the Philippines-based International Rice Research Institute, calls genetically modified crops “a weapon in our armory” to address global food security; he says the world is going to get warmer with climate change, so people will have to develop crop varieties resistant to it, including GM crops.

LINK

[C8]

Germany’s Environment Minister and Green Party stalwart rebukes EU’s hopes to relax crop gene editing rules, invokes precautionary principle

German Environment Minister Steffi Lemke on [June 13] rebuffed the European Commission’s plan to propose new rules for crops bred using so-called new genomic techniques like CRISPR-Cas9, saying it’s not necessary.

“I see no need for re-regulation,” Lemke declared.

The topic of how to regulate new genomic techniques, or NGTs, is controversial, with proponents arguing they don’t pose the same risks as traditional genetically modified organisms and therefore should be treated differently, while some scientists and green groups warn there are still too many unknowns about their impacts.

The Commission is planning to propose a new legal framework for NGTs separate from the existing GMO rules they now fall under, currently expected to land next year.

Lemke, who also serves as Germany’s consumer protection minister, said that any new set of rules that Brussels puts out “must continue to include mandatory labeling,” and be underpinned by the EU’s precautionary principle of erring on the side of caution in food safety.

“Once an NGT is released to the environment, it is almost impossible to remove it,” she said. “Potential risks not only to the plants but also to ecosystems and biodiversity must be identified and evaluated precisely.”

LINK

This is hilarious, Germany is worried about the genetic purity of their crops and yet they are forcing all of their citizens to take a vaccine shot that is entirely based on messenger RNA experiments, and which there are no long-term studies about the effects of. You can't make this stuff up.

Experiment on corn = bad / Experiment on people = good

[Tanada]

CRISPR's Next 10 Years: From Lab To Plate?

10 years on from its discovery, CRISPR’s potential for agricultural adaptation has started to gather momentum. We caught up with the industry’s leading specialists to find out what new frontiers and capabilities we can expect for the coming decade ahead.

Harnessing Genomics for Adaptation

Ponsi Trivisvavet

“Over the next 10 years, I expect CRISPR applications in agriculture to fully emerge from concept to prominence. For example, at Inari we are introducing multiplex gene-edited seeds that bring forth new possibilities, like higher-yielding crops that require fewer natural resources – benefiting the population, the planet and the people who grow our food. The timing of CRISPR’s emergence could not come any sooner: If the past 10 years taught us the promise of this technology, they also proved the urgency of wielding its potential. The effects of climate change are unquestionably here, and we have only one lifetime – this lifetime – to ensure the long-term sustainability of our global food system.” Ponsi Trivisvavet, CEO, INARI

Gilad Gershon

“CRISPR gene editing has already made a massive impact on agriculture over the last few years, by significantly expanding the landscape of biotech plant products that are both technologically feasible and commercially attractive. Our team at Tropic believes that in the coming decade we will see many such products reach the market, and that their impact will reach critically important crops that feed a large portion of humanity but have seen relatively little genetic innovation to date.” Gilad Gerson, Co-Founder & CEO, TROPIC BIOSCIENCES

Bradley Ringeisen

“I believe that drought tolerance and resistance to emerging pathogens will be the biggest impact CRISPR will have on agriculture. The world’s supply of chocolate is threatened by the Cocoa Swollen Shoot Disease, but the IGI is using CRISPR gene editing to create a variety of cocoa that fights off the virus. A bit further into the future, I think we could dramatically improve yields (we have to feed a rapidly growing world population!) through several different CRISPR-mediated approaches. First, gene editing is currently being used throughout the world in several research labs to improve photosynthesis. Both the carbon fixing mechanisms and the light reaction mechanisms are targets for improvement that could perhaps increase efficiencies or biomass yields by 30% or more. Additionally, you could imagine engineering the positive interactions between a crop and soil microbes to reduce fertilizer use (both nitrogen and phosphorus) and store more carbon, which not only increases soil fertility but also could potentially produce additional revenue to farmers through carbon credits.” Bradley Ringeisen, Executive Director, INNOVATIVE GENOMICS INSTITUTE

Mike Ward

“From an agricultural perspective, CRISPR has already led to an array of technologies that can advance crop productivity and sustainability. I hope that in the coming decade these efforts can continue to accelerate and have a global impact for both consumers and growers. To achieve this, it will be critical to have clear regulatory pathways that allow safe deployment of CRISPR technology without creating undue barriers to entry, particularly in those jurisdictions that set the standards for others. For example, a clarified regulatory pathway for commercializing CRISPR-edited crops in Europe would enable deployment of valuable technologies not only in Europe, but likely also in many other countries that would likely follow Europe’s lead.” Mike Ward, Head of Life Sciences and Patent Practice Groups & IP Group Co-Chair and Sarah E. Bloch, Patent Agent, MORRISON & FOERSTER

Mat Muller

“On the 10th anniversary of the discovery of CRISPR gene editing as one of the most precious tools in the scientists’ toolchest, its promise remains intact, whether it is to cure human diseases or combat climate change with sustainable cropping systems. My anticipation for the coming 10 years is that we will see the CRISPR promise realized in plant agriculture, under a supportive global regulatory framework, which encourages the responsible deployment of products which are urgently needed to avert the nascent global food crisis. The future can’t come soon enough!” Mat Muller, Director, Biotechnology, CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE

Neal Gutterson

“The first 10 years from first discovery of a new promising tech are often more about hype than delivery. So it has been for genome editing. Should we be surprised? No. But I’d be surprised and very disappointed if the next ten years ends with the same outcome. We can expect the next 10 years to be rich with diverse solutions for urgent ag and food problems enabled by genome editing, coming primarily from small companies. As with other sectors, history tells us this will compel larger companies later in the cycle either to invest heavily internally to catch up and compete – leveraging their market, brand, and distribution assets – or to acquire successful start-up companies with competitive business models that can scale.” Neal Gutterson, CTO, RADICLE

CRISPR

[Tanada]

Drought-resistant & genome edited rice variety likely to be released to farmers by 2026: Agriculture minister Narendra Singh Tomar

1st crop to be developed using genome-edited technology to be released for commercial cultivation

A drought-resistant rice variety developed through application of genome-edited technology for the first time in the country, is expected to be available for field evaluation by kharif 2024 and for commercial cultivation by farmers by 2026, agriculture minister Narendra Singh Tomar has said.

The environment ministry and Department of Biotechnology (DBT) have given the sanctions for the field evaluation of genome-edited rice variety during the kharif 2024 season to Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Delhi, Tomar stated in a written reply to Lok Sabha on Tuesday.

The research work is carried out with the approval of institutional biosafety committee constituted by DBT under Environment Protection Act, 1986.

“New variety of rice is expected to improve water use efficiency in paddy cultivation and help farmers in taking up the crops despite rainfall deficiency,” KC Bansal, secretary, National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, told FE.

This is expected to be the first variety of agricultural crop developed using genome-edited technology to go for commercial release in the next four years in the country.

The government in March had exempted certain types of genome-edited crops from the stringent bio-safety regulations applicable to genetically-modified (GM) crops to ensure wider use of this technology and accelerate genetic improvement of crops in the country.

There are several crops being developed through using genome-edited technology that are in the pipeline for field trial.

The environment ministry, in a notification had exempted site directed nuclease (SDN) 1 and 2 genomes from Rules 7-11 of the Environment Protection Act, thus allowing it to avoid a long process for approval of GM crops through the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC).

Scientists associated with the Indian Council for Agricultural Research said the technology has great promise and emphasis is needed on improving oilseed and pulse crop varieties resistant to diseases, insects or pests, and tolerant to drought, salinity and heat stresses

Scientists say that genome-edited plants are different from genetically-modified organisms (GMO) technology. Genome editing is a group of technologies that gives scientists the ability to change an organism’s DNA.

The US and China are leaders in usage of this technology for developing crop varieties like rice, maize, soyabean, canola and tomato which withstand biotic and abiotic stresses arising out of climate change.

Last year, a group of eminent agriculture scientists wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi asking for ease of release of genome-editing technology for the sector.

In the case of GM technology, applicants have to apply to the GEAC, which follows time-consuming testing methods along with states. Till now, cotton is the only GM crop that has been approved for commercial cultivation in the country.

LINK

[vtsnowedin]

I can see where a "drought resistant" variety might be able to withstand a considerable dry period during its growing season but at some point it has to take up enough water for the photosynthesis process to proceed and grow the leaves and seed (grain)heads.
So if your problem is an occasional dry month during the growing season this might be the answer but if the drought last the full growing season your field will still be a desert.

[evilgenius]

Alright, what I think the controversy over genetically modified foods really indicates is that Americans are too cheap to properly fund general scientific research! No, you do not have a right to complain, if you don't believe in general funding for scientific research and you are worried about unforeseen consequences from consuming genetically modified food.

You are worried about the unknown, at the same time as you are deliberately backing society as a whole away from properly approaching the subject of the unknown. It sounds like pure fear. It may just be too obtuse a fascination with money, I don't know?

Either way, it looks like this when you get to what happens politically. Maybe looking at it objectively, seeing that they have been behaving this way when they may not have thought they were, those who do that can let it go?

I think people focus so much upon their own testimony about what consciousness is so much, that they forget to recognize that it takes a certain amount of invention to understand others. Some people are more sensitive than I am. Some are tougher. If our differences are brought out physically, there is one response. When you get to how these things work out technically, or politically, it can go a whole other way.

All of those people have interests. And they spread across that sort of matrix, where how they behave is something that can be tracked. You can imagine how people would have a hard time finding themselves, actually, within a grouping of such responders responses. People don't always know themselves. Mostly, they fall back upon their prejudices, their training. In fact, most people will say the most ridiculous things about who they think they are. I mean, yeah, just me saying.

[Doly]

This is hilarious, Germany is worried about the genetic purity of their crops and yet they are forcing all of their citizens to take a vaccine shot that is entirely based on messenger RNA experiments, and which there are no long-term studies about the effects of.

I fully appreciate that the average person understands risk management like fish understand bicycles. In spite of the shortcomings of the average person, I'll make an attempt to explain.

For any sort of new thing that gets done in a large scale, it's usually somebody's responsibility to do what's called a risk assessment. This involves looking at the risks of doing this thing, and also looking at the risks of not doing it, if not doing it carries some risks. Not taking a vaccine shot when there is a highly contagious and possibly deadly disease circulating is a significant risk. Not planting a genetically modified crop carries little or no risk. Then, after the assessment gets done, a decision is made whether this thing is too risky or not.

Also, just because two things use a similar technology, it doesn't mean at all that the risks are similar. Cooking and eating delicious edible mushrooms doesn't have the same risks as cooking and eating poisonous mushrooms.

So, if you are a layman, how do you figure out the risks of something? Well, first of all, DO NOT CHECK IT UP ON THE INTERNET. At least, not on the free Internet. Useful information may be available in paid-for sites, but in terms of getting an idea of risk, the free Internet is about the worst possible place to look at. You get what you pay for, remember? The free Internet these days is basically all about offloading silly amounts of risk to poor people. You get info and entertainment for free in exchange of becoming the sort of idiot that does the stupidest things, so that people that make money from fools have a business model.

So, what are good alternatives if you really want to understand the risk of something and you don't have much money? Use your own contacts. If you want to understand the risks of a vaccine, ask your doctor. After all, if you trust your doctor for all your medical decisions, it makes sense to also trust your doctor for a decision that the Internet (that remember, essentially wants to kill poor people) tells you is dangerous. If you want to understand the risk of genetically modified crops, go to a farmer's market and ask one of your local farmers.

Are there no good people on the Internet that will give you useful information for free? Sure, a few. Like myself just now. Have you noticed how few people like me are around? That's because, while charity exists, it's rather small in comparison with the amount of people that do things for the money.

[C8]

This is hilarious, Germany is worried about the genetic purity of their crops and yet they are forcing all of their citizens to take a vaccine shot that is entirely based on messenger RNA experiments, and which there are no long-term studies about the effects of.

I fully appreciate that the average person understands risk management like fish understand bicycles. In spite of the shortcomings of the average person, I'll make an attempt to explain.

So, what are good alternatives if you really want to understand the risk of something and you don't have much money? Use your own contacts. If you want to understand the risks of a vaccine, ask your doctor.

Doctors have an extremely high malpractice rate in the US and face no real consequences for incompetency as malpractice insurance just raises the costs of medicine on all of us. We are not allowed to see which doctors are successfully sued the most so patients don't have the info to make educated choices necessary for free markets to weed out bad actors. In the US, we have a privatized version of socialized medicine- the worst of both worlds: high prices and no consequences for bad doctors.

The best method on deciding to take the vaccine is to do your own research and assess the risks based on the same info your doctor's have. Govt. mandating that everyone take a shot, that there are no long term studies for, is highly risky for most citizens (but not all). Common FDA method is to do long term studies- the FDA violated their own rules with Covid shots. A thinking person would know those rules are there for a reason. Sheep just go ask their doctor who has been sued multiple times for bad practice.

[mousepad]

Are there no good people on the Internet ? Sure, a few. Like myself

[jedrider]

Germany’s Environment Minister and Green Party stalwart rebukes EU’s hopes to relax crop gene editing rules, invokes precautionary principle

German Environment Minister Steffi Lemke on [June 13] rebuffed the European Commission’s plan to propose new rules for crops bred using so-called new genomic techniques like CRISPR-Cas9, saying it’s not necessary.

“I see no need for re-regulation,” Lemke declared.

The topic of how to regulate new genomic techniques, or NGTs, is controversial, with proponents arguing they don’t pose the same risks as traditional genetically modified organisms and therefore should be treated differently, while some scientists and green groups warn there are still too many unknowns about their impacts.

The Commission is planning to propose a new legal framework for NGTs separate from the existing GMO rules they now fall under, currently expected to land next year.

Lemke, who also serves as Germany’s consumer protection minister, said that any new set of rules that Brussels puts out “must continue to include mandatory labeling,” and be underpinned by the EU’s precautionary principle of erring on the side of caution in food safety.

“Once an NGT is released to the environment, it is almost impossible to remove it,” she said. “Potential risks not only to the plants but also to ecosystems and biodiversity must be identified and evaluated precisely.”

LINK

This is hilarious, Germany is worried about the genetic purity of their crops and yet they are forcing all of their citizens to take a vaccine shot that is entirely based on messenger RNA experiments, and which there are no long-term studies about the effects of. You can't make this stuff up.

Experiment on corn = bad / Experiment on people = good

Bad analogy. I don't think there is any indication of RNA vaccines having the potential to alter our DNA except for how it affects survival rates, which makes it practically nil in effect. Genetically modified plants however reproduce and share DNA.

[Doly]

We are not allowed to see which doctors are successfully sued the most so patients don't have the info to make educated choices necessary for free markets to weed out bad actors.

First, what makes you think that the number of lawsuits against a doctor is any sort of measure of their competency? Since patients generally don't know medicine, lawsuits may just indicate that a doctor has poor bed manners and irritates the patients, rather than anything about their competency as a doctor.

Second, what makes you think that a free market is a good solution for medicine? The value of your health and your life (or the health and life of your close relatives) is infinite to you, since in poor health there is very little you can enjoy. If demand is infinite, supply and demand converge at the point where healthcare demands your entire fortune. Which is precisely the situation you have in the USA.

The best method on deciding to take the vaccine is to do your own research and assess the risks based on the same info your doctor's have.

To have the same info as your doctor, you'd have to study medicine.

Govt. mandating that everyone take a shot, that there are no long term studies for, is highly risky for most citizens (but not all).

You have no idea whether the vaccine is highly risky. Every new thing in the world has no long term studies about their risk, but that doesn't mean that you automatically assume that if you buy a new gadget, it's highly risky because it's new. Again, most people just don't understand risk management.

Common FDA method is to do long term studies- the FDA violated their own rules with Covid shots.

They didn't actually. You could look at their website about their rules, if you were really interested. But it would be somewhat pointless, since you don't seem to understand risk management.

A thinking person would know those rules are there for a reason. Sheep just go ask their doctor who has been sued multiple times for bad practice.

A thinking person on this forum, that is, worried about peak oil and the possibility of everything going downhill pretty badly, would not risk getting infected with a potentially deadly virus, and possibly infect other people in their surroundings. Full stop.

Sheep allow the free Internet to fill their minds with ideas that have resonances that might kill them, and end up thinking that they're clever by not taking a vaccine. I would know, I have relatives on that boat. It's lucky that they didn't catch covid when it was dangerous and by now it's so mild it isn't dangerous any more.

You, on the other hand, are probably just a troll trying to get a rise out of me (and succeeding, by the way). And in case it isn't totally obvious by now, I don't subscribe to the viral theory of memes as a good way of thinking about how memes operate.

[AdamB]

So, if you are a layman, how do you figure out the risks of something? Well, first of all, DO NOT CHECK IT UP ON THE INTERNET.

Well, there goes the main form of peak oil research among the church members. Too bad you weren't around to tell them the value of their research back in real time. There would be far fewer of them to yuck it up about nowadays.

[evilgenius]

I still think the problem is that Americans are too cheap. Every step that requires proper work takes more time. The environment that poor people tend to live in does not contain very much information. They don't live with understanding. They live with the information that whoever is incentivized to give to them gives to them. Most efforts to balance that usually wind up doomed because the people also don't understand what equity is. They think that anything given to another that they don't also get themselves is unfair. But they aren't using a standard that evaluates to success, but to emotion. Equity is intended to give everybody success, even those who are farther behind to start with. Emotion stops things when those who are farther behind start to get things that those who aren't resent.