Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EU Court of Justice - Emotions > Science

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • EU Court of Justice - Emotions > Science

    Gene-edited plants and animals are GM foods, EU court rules

    Landmark decision means gene-edited plants and animals will be regulated under the same rules as genetically modified organisms.

    Plants and animals created by innovative gene-editing technology have been genetically modified and should be regulated as such, the EU’s top court has ruled.

    The landmark decision ends 10 years of debate in Europe about what is – and is not – a GM food, with a victory for environmentalists, and a bitter blow to Europe’s biotech industry.
    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...st-court-rules

    A victory for the forces of ignorance and stupidity. No one has ever got so much as a cough, wheeze, sniffle, or bellyache from eating foods using ingredients derived from any current variety of genetically modified crop. Current varieties safely incorporate genes for traits such as herbicide or pest resistance into crops like corn, cotton, and canola. Science-illiterate activists have managed to frighten the dumber portions of the public and politicians into adopting equally dumb regulations that have massively slowed the deployment of these beneficial new biotech crop varieties. This is particularly the case in Europe where emotions are apparently much more important than science.

    Remember kids, the scientific consensus on the safety of GE foods is at about the same level of agreement among scientists as that on climate change. Something to keep in mind next time someone says "trust the science".

  • #2
    I am rather split in the issue
    GMO covers a lot of things. Protein enriched salt resistant rice is one example of what it can gives as good. However this doesnt interest crop industries.

    On the other hand pest resisting soya or maize by secretion of Bt toxin is a best seller. But we are lacking a recoil on its safety no matter (interested) companies say.
    I dont really want to be a guinea pig ala thalidomide or diethylstilbestrol with adverse events appearing 20-30 years later.
    Monsanto and al havent a special record of honesty afterall

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
      A victory for the forces of ignorance and stupidity. No one has ever got so much as a cough, wheeze, sniffle, or bellyache from eating foods using ingredients derived from any current variety of genetically modified crop.
      The court wasn't ruling on whether they were safe, it was ruling on whether they were GMOs. You can argue that the legislation is too restrictive or poor, and I'd agree with you.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mordoror View Post
        I am rather split in the issue
        GMO covers a lot of things. Protein enriched salt resistant rice is one example of what it can gives as good. However this doesnt interest crop industries.

        On the other hand pest resisting soya or maize by secretion of Bt toxin is a best seller. But we are lacking a recoil on its safety no matter (interested) companies say.
        I dont really want to be a guinea pig ala thalidomide or diethylstilbestrol with adverse events appearing 20-30 years later.
        Monsanto and al havent a special record of honesty afterall
        So which is it? Climate Change has a 97% "is real, is happening, is man-made" support from scientists. GMO's are safe has an equal level of support. Is only one of them right? Or both? And if so, which and why.

        Originally posted by Corrupt View Post

        The court wasn't ruling on whether they were safe, it was ruling on whether they were GMOs. You can argue that the legislation is too restrictive or poor, and I'd agree with you.

        ​They also ruled that current modification techniques (i.e. bombarding seeds with radiation and hoping for a beneficial mutation) isn't. This is just a slightly different version of that. I repeat that it's a legally enforced triumph of stupid over science.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post

          So which is it? Climate Change has a 97% "is real, is happening, is man-made" support from scientists. GMO's are safe has an equal level of support. Is only one of them right? Or both? And if so, which and why.



          ​They also ruled that current modification techniques (i.e. bombarding seeds with radiation and hoping for a beneficial mutation) isn't. This is just a slightly different version of that. I repeat that it's a legally enforced triumph of stupid over science.

          For the record "GMO are safe" is a bit broad. Most agriculture GMO are considered safe. Some are questioned. On those ones you ll hardly find a consensus and 97% of scientists saying they are safe.
          You are comparing apples and oranges

          Plus given that new tools (CRISP-R) have easened genetic manipulations, allowing DIY/cellar modifications regulations (the horror😁) are welcomed.

          In fact your outrage is pretty much missing the point. It s the fact that genetically engineered seeds were not considered as GMO (while it is the sheer definition of it) that was not consistant with the reality, thanks to corporate lobbying.

          Science says that a geneticaly engineered organism is a GMO. Period.
          Regulators say the level of safety to be applied according the receiving organism, the giving organism and the modifications performed. There are several layers of safety regulations from very slight (no risk) to heavy (high risk for health or environment).

          Puting geneticaly engineered seeds in the class they belonged to (GMO) doesnt presupose any safety level. It will be checked case by case and those deemed not risky wont be impacted.

          Btw your comparison with irradiation (or crossbreeding ) is irrelevant. It is not the definition of a GMO....not by far.

          GMO = introduction of foreign organism genes in another organism in order to be expressed in the receiving organism.
          You can bomb tobacco plant with zillion gigarads it will never express spider silk genes nor ebola antigens nor flu H5N1 antigens
          Last edited by Mordoror; 25-07-2018, 10:50 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            From the link... btw. the title of the article is: "Gene-edited plants and animals are GM foods, EU court rules".
            In their ruling, the EU judges said: “Organisms obtained by mutagenesis are GMOs [genetically modified organisms]It follows that those organisms come, in principle, within the scope of the GMO directive and are subject to the obligations laid down [therein].”
            The ruling is fine in my book.

            I think people bring their own emotions on this one: the "environmentalists" see this as a victory; TheKiwi sees it as an affront to science (while he bashes science? what to clarify your last point?) and "UK scientists who took advantage of a legal grey area" are unhappy that there is no more legal grey area.

            And if you don't like the law than try to change the law. Don't blame the court for clarifying its applicability.

            I for one have no problem with GMO food, as long as the biotech companies follow the "GMO directive and are subject to the obligations laid down" (basically I'm against unregulated GMOs) and label the product as such so that as a customer I know what I'm buying.

            Comment


            • #7
              I am quite disappointed by this ruling. It seems they bent a lot to come to this conclusion.

              And like Kiwi said ignored science - this time.



              Article in German called "The Long Shadow of Ideologie"

              https://www.spektrum.de/kolumne/der-...logien/1580714

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
                A victory for the forces of ignorance and stupidity.
                Sums the EU up in 9 words - have they levied a 100bn euro bill on GM companies yet

                Comment


                • #9
                  It is the anti-GMO's activists who have the long history of deliberate distortion of research and results - where they're not out and out lying.

                  This ruling can be seen (much like the recent EU fines on US tech companies and the GDPR rules) as an attempt to cripple foreign companies in areas where the EU is a decade (or more) behind everyone else.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
                    It is the anti-GMO's activists who have the long history of deliberate distortion of research and results - where they're not out and out lying.

                    This ruling can be seen (much like the recent EU fines on US tech companies and the GDPR rules) as an attempt to cripple foreign companies in areas where the EU is a decade (or more) behind everyone else.
                    You can of course considere it in various ways
                    I am seeing it as giving a consistent label to things that had a profitable grey area to expand over the past 10y
                    Let the customer decide if he is ready to have GMO food in his plate

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Crispr Cas is a very powerful tool. And it emulates nature. I think this is very close to the original.

                      many scientists are very excited about it.


                      A sensible solution would have been to make it cumpolsory to declare GMO content, but otherwise let it compete with the traditional products. Let the customer decide.

                      And monitor all developments for potential hazards.


                      But with such ideological rulings we shut ourselves out from a huge future potential.


                      Just a few days ago I saw a documentary about how society is tricked with fake scientific studies and the pressure on scientists having to publish lead to weird situations.

                      Some "scientific publishers" publish every bullshit, stuff isn't peer reviewed etc. and then this horseshit gets sold as "scientific proof".


                      Just look at the GcMAF story - built up around faked publications


                      https://trulyheal.com/hype-scandals-...y-about-gcmaf/



                      Every stance being ideological is absolutely detrimental to the scientific debate and, in the end, leads to a dumbed down society believing in ghosts and trolls

                      You say otherwise? Burn!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        CrispCas9 doesnt emulate nature. It is a tinkered tool that existed only in bacterias and was modified to be applied on superior organisms. It is very potent yes and thus opening new ranges for genetic engineering from pets to food to transhumanism

                        Thing is 1- we lack a bit of recoil on it and it seems more dalaging than initially thought. Google the recent discoveries about crispr and dna damages.

                        2 i agree with let label the products and let the consumer decide. That one purpose of that EU decison. Do you know that there are already GMO salmons on the market, bioengineered with a growth hormon to make them grow quicker?
                        I dont want them, not because of fear but iam not thrilled by the idea of farm grown GE fish vs wild fish.
                        So far label was not compulsory. It will become so and i welcome this

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Dangers/new findings should not be ignored if surfaced. Nevertheless it is worth looking into it. May cuer HIV and cancer one day

                          Yes on first thought it seems gross with GMO food. But on a second thought, with declaration labels and extensive research on dangers etc. it may be the future.

                          Anyway very complicated, also the jurisdictional side where farmers are kept dependent on seeds and stuff.



                          CRISPR CAS edited plants can only be identified as GMO if large DNA sequences have been exchanged. Otherwise they are indistinguishable from naturally occuring plants.


                          https://www.transgen.de/lexikon/1845.crispr-cas.html

                          Bisher ist noch unklar, ob etwa Pflanzensorten, welche zukünftig unter Verwendung des CRISPR/Cas-Systems gezüchtet werden, als gentechnisch veränderte Organismen (GVO) einzustufen und zu bewerten sind. Werden keine größeren DNA-Sequenzen neu eingefügt, unterscheiden sich mit CRISPR/Cas editiere Pflanzen nicht von solchen, die auch unter natürlichen Bedingungen vorkommen können. Anders als bei GVO ist ein spezifischer Nachweis des Verfahrens anhand der damit erzeugten Produkte nicht möglich.



                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mordoror View Post
                            CrispCas9 doesnt emulate nature. It is a tinkered tool that existed only in bacterias and was modified to be applied on superior organisms. It is very potent yes and thus opening new ranges for genetic engineering from pets to food to transhumanism

                            Thing is 1- we lack a bit of recoil on it and it seems more dalaging than initially thought. Google the recent discoveries about crispr and dna damages.

                            2 i agree with let label the products and let the consumer decide. That one purpose of that EU decison. Do you know that there are already GMO salmons on the market, bioengineered with a growth hormon to make them grow quicker?
                            I dont want them, not because of fear but iam not thrilled by the idea of farm grown GE fish vs wild fish.
                            So far label was not compulsory. It will become so and i welcome this
                            x2 ten little potatomato spiders

                            While we at it didnt entire farm of those escaped again recently in the wild somewhere in south america?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by picanha View Post
                              Dangers/new findings should not be ignored if surfaced. Nevertheless it is worth looking into it. May cuer HIV and cancer one day

                              Yes on first thought it seems gross with GMO food. But on a second thought, with declaration labels and extensive research on dangers etc. it may be the future.

                              Anyway very complicated, also the jurisdictional side where farmers are kept dependent on seeds and stuff.



                              CRISPR CAS edited plants can only be identified as GMO if large DNA sequences have been exchanged. Otherwise they are indistinguishable from naturally occuring plants.


                              https://www.transgen.de/lexikon/1845.crispr-cas.html

                              Bisher ist noch unklar, ob etwa Pflanzensorten, welche zukünftig unter Verwendung des CRISPR/Cas-Systems gezüchtet werden, als gentechnisch veränderte Organismen (GVO) einzustufen und zu bewerten sind. Werden keine größeren DNA-Sequenzen neu eingefügt, unterscheiden sich mit CRISPR/Cas editiere Pflanzen nicht von solchen, die auch unter natürlichen Bedingungen vorkommen können. Anders als bei GVO ist ein spezifischer Nachweis des Verfahrens anhand der damit erzeugten Produkte nicht möglich.


                              Crisp Cas9 edited plants are GMOs if they have received foreign organismes (be it a plant or animal or bacteria or yeast) sequences no matter the lenght.
                              That the definition of GMO.
                              Period
                              The thing you quoted is a pure lie from a corporate/startup which wants to capitalize on GE.
                              Once you introduce a foreign gene it makes the GMO different from wild species and distinguishable even by basic molecular technics (PCR or WB)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X